Opinion
CV166071068S
01-12-2017
Christa Weaver v. Matthew Santaniello
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#110)
Jane S. Scholl, J.
Introduction
This an action by the plaintiff, Christa Weaver, pursuant to the dog bite statute, General Statutes § 22-357, against the defendant, Matthew Santaniello. The plaintiff claims that she was attacked by a dog owned and/or kept by the defendant and suffered injuries as a result.
The plaintiff has moved for summary judgment as to liability on her claim because the undisputed facts establish a finding of liability under the statute. In support of her position, the plaintiff submitted a memorandum of law, the defendant's responses to the plaintiff's requests for admissions, defendant's answer, the complaint, the plaintiff's affidavit, and a picture of her claimed injury. The defendant submitted a brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment but no affidavits or other evidence in support of his opposition. Oral argument on the motion was heard on January 9, 2017.
Discussion
" Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . . . In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party . . . Although the party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any material fact [however] a party opposing summary judgment must substantiate its adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue . . . It is not enough . . . for the opposing party merely to assert the existence of such a disputed issue . . . Mere assertions of fact, whether contained in a complaint or in a brief, are insufficient to establish the existence of a material fact and, therefore, cannot refute evidence properly presented to the court [in support of a motion for summary judgment] . . . As a general rule, then, [w]hen a motion for summary judgment is filed and supported by affidavits and other documents, an adverse party, by affidavit or as otherwise provided by . . . [the rules of practice], must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, and if he does not so respond, summary judgment shall be entered against him . . . Requiring the nonmovant to produce such evidence does not shift the burden of proof. Rather, it ensures that the nonmovant has not raised a specious issue for the sole purpose of forcing the case to trial . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Squeo v. Norwalk Hosp. Association, 316 Conn. 558, 593-94, 113 A.3d 932 (2015).
The defendant claims, in his objection to the motion, that although he is the owner of the dog he has no personal knowledge of the alleged events since he was not home nor on the property at the time of the alleged attack. These statements are not supported by any affidavit since the defendant did not submit one. " Although the court must view the inferences to be drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion . . . a party may not rely on mere speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts to overcome a motion for summary judgment . . . A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must substantiate its adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Tuccio Dev., Inc. v. Neumann, 111 Conn.App. 588, 594, 960 A.2d 1071 (2008).
Thus the court is left with the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in deciding the motion. That evidence discloses that the following facts are undisputed: On April 9th and 10th, 2016, the defendant was the owner and keeper of a dog. The plaintiff was on the defendant's premises with permission at the time the dog bit her, on or around midnight on April 9th or 10th. At the time of the incident the plaintiff was not teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog. The plaintiff was injured as a result of the attack by the defendant's dog.
General Statutes § 22-357 states: " If any dog does any damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper, or, if the owner or keeper is a minor, the parent or guardian of such minor, shall be liable for the amount of such damage, except when such damage has been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog . . ." " The statute imposes liability upon these defendants if (1) damage was done to the plaintiff's person by the dog, (2) at the time of such damage, the plaintiff was not committing a trespass or other tort, or was not teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog, and (3) the defendants were its keepers." Malone v. Steinberg, 138 Conn. 718, 722, 89 A.2d 213 (1952).
The defendant has presented no evidence that creates an issue of fact as to his liability under the statute.
Conclusion
Therefore the motion for summary judgment as to liability is granted.