199 Conn.App. 725
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- On Aug. 27, 2017, Sandra Augustine fell descending an interior stairway at Donovan’s Reef (operated by CNAPS, LLC) after her shoe heel allegedly caught in the carpeting; she sued for premises negligence.
- Augustine’s complaint alleged loosely affixed carpeting and uneven/spongy padding as the hazardous condition; CNAPS denied negligence and raised comparative negligence.
- At deposition Augustine said her heel ‘‘got caught’’ because the carpeting was ‘‘squishy,’’ ‘‘uneven,’’ ‘‘bumpy,’’ ‘‘wavy,’’ and ‘‘didn’t feel secure,’’ and that her shoe remained in the carpeting as she stepped forward.
- Two guests submitted affidavits corroborating that the carpet was not tightly affixed and that the padding was unusually thick, spongy, loose and uneven, making it easy for a shoe to sink in and get stuck.
- CNAPS moved for summary judgment arguing (1) Augustine failed to identify a specific defect or prove notice, and (2) she produced no expert to establish the alleged carpeting defect; the trial court granted summary judgment, finding Augustine’s descriptions ‘‘amorphous’’ and insufficient to prove proximate cause.
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding Augustine’s deposition and the two affidavits raised a genuine issue of material fact on causation and that credibility/resolution of inconsistencies were for the factfinder.
Issues
| Issue | Augustine’s Argument | CNAPS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on proximate cause of the fall? | Augustine: her deposition (heel caught; carpeting squishy/uneven) plus two guest affidavits show the carpeting condition caused the fall. | CNAPS: descriptions were vague/amorphous and not linked to the fall, so causation would be speculative. | Reversed trial court; evidence, viewed for nonmovant, sufficed to allow a jury to find proximate cause. |
| Did Augustine need expert testimony to prove the carpeting defect caused the fall? | Augustine: lay observations and eyewitness affidavits are sufficient to raise a factual issue. | CNAPS: absence of disclosed experts means no proof of a defect or causal mechanism. | Court treated lay testimony and affidavits as sufficient to create a triable issue; experts not required at summary judgment here. |
| Do inconsistencies in Augustine’s deposition justify summary judgment? | Augustine: a single inconsistency does not negate her largely consistent statements; credibility is for the jury. | CNAPS: inconsistent testimony undermines reliability of her descriptions. | Court held inconsistencies go to credibility for the trier of fact and do not justify summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuozzo v. Orange, 178 Conn. App. 647 (2017) (summary judgment standard; must view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Ruiz v. Victory Properties, LLC, 315 Conn. 320 (2015) (proximate cause is ordinarily a question for the trier of fact)
- Malloy v. Colchester, 85 Conn. App. 627 (2004) (legal/practical discussion of causation in fact and proximate cause; more than conjecture required)
- DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 123 Conn. App. 583 (2010) (inconsistent deposition statements generally affect credibility and are for impeachment, not automatic grounds for summary judgment)