147 Conn. App. 173
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Brye was injured at the J.B. Gates Correctional Institution on May 9, 2002 during recreation when a floor portion collapsed beneath him while lifting weights on a stage area.
- The area where the fall occurred had historically been a lighting pit and had been covered with one-quarter inch plywood after the facility ceased housing female inmates.
- Brye filed a negligence action against the state, alleging the Gates facility was under the department's control and the plywood cover created a dangerous condition.
- The trial court found the state was not in possession and control of the premises when the plywood was installed and that expert testimony was required to prove the plywood created a dangerous condition.
- The court entered judgment for the state; Brye appealed, challenging both the possession/control finding and the necessity of expert testimony.
- The appellate court affirmed, agreeing the standard for expert testimony was properly applied and that possession and control were established by judicial admissions, but still upholding the judgment because expert testimony was required to prove the dangerousness of the plywood.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state possessed and controlled the premises when plywood was installed. | Brye argues the state admitted control of the Gates facility at all relevant times. | State contends no conclusive proof of control was provided beyond pleadings. | Plenary review; admissions establish control during the relevant period. |
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove the plywood created a dangerous condition. | The issue was a lay question about using plywood to cover a hole; no expert needed. | The question requires technical understanding beyond lay knowledge. | Expert testimony was required to establish the dangerousness of the plywood. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meek v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 72 Conn. App. 467 (2002) (affirmative-act rule for notice from defendant-created hazard)
- Kelly v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 281 Conn. 768 (2007) (Meek framework clarified by Supreme Court)
- Borrelli v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 106 Conn. App. 266 (2008) (judicial admissions bind the party)
- Young v. Vlahos, 103 Conn. App. 470 (2007) (admissions binding and conclusive on pleader)
- Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Precision Mechanical Services, Inc., 122 Conn. App. 448 (2010) (exception to expert requirement for obvious gross neglect by lay observer)
- Vanliner Ins. Co. v. Fay, 98 Conn. App. 125 (2006) (expert necessity not satisfied by lay witness alone)
- DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 306 Conn. 107 (2012) (affirmative-act rule and notice analysis for hazardous conditions)
- Davis v. Margolis, 215 Conn. 408 (1990) (standard for introducing expert testimony in negligence cases)