History
  • No items yet
midpage
148 Conn. App. 435
Conn. App. Ct.
2014
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiff Victor Colon was allegedly assaulted in the parking lot outside AutoZone’s store at 300 North Avenue, Bridgeport, on or about July 14, 2009.
  • Colon filed a negligence and premises liability action against AutoZone on July 14, 2011; AutoZone answered and asserted it had no possession or control over the parking lot.
  • AutoZone moved for summary judgment May 23, 2012, arguing it owed no duty because it did not control the parking area where the incident occurred.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment on December 26, 2012, concluding AutoZone did not have control or possession over the parking lot and owed no duty.
  • On appeal, Colon contends there are material questions of fact about AutoZone’s control of the area and foreseeability of a dangerous condition; the court affirms the trial court’s decision.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether AutoZone owed a duty based on control of the parking area. Colon argues AutoZone had control under the lease and thus owed a duty. AutoZone contends the lease excludes the parking lot from its control. No duty; no genuine factual dispute on control; summary judgment affirmed.
Whether foreseeability of a dangerous condition creates a duty in this context. Colon asserts foreseeability of criminal or dangerous conditions could impose liability. AutoZone argues foreseeability cannot create a duty absent control/possession. Foreseeability not enough; no duty where possession/control absent.

Key Cases Cited

  • Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 310 Conn. 304 (Conn. 2013) (review standard for summary judgment)
  • Mirjavi v. Vakilzadeh, 310 Conn. 176 (Conn. 2013) (duty and control of premises analysis)
  • Mills v. The Solution, LLC, 138 Conn. App. 40 (Conn. App. 2012) (control as a factual issue subject to summary judgment)
  • Fiorelli v. Gorsky, 120 Conn. App. 298 (Conn. App. 2010) (lease-defined control can render legal questions)
  • Ford v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, 155 Conn. 24 (Conn. 1967) (foreseeability and adjacent dangerous conditions)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Colon v. Autozone Northeast, Inc.
Court Name: Connecticut Appellate Court
Date Published: Feb 25, 2014
Citations: 148 Conn. App. 435; 84 A.3d 1234; 2014 Conn. App. LEXIS 69; 2014 WL 641979; AC35397
Docket Number: AC35397
Court Abbreviation: Conn. App. Ct.
Log In
    Colon v. Autozone Northeast, Inc., 148 Conn. App. 435