Kurisoo v. Ziegler
166 A.3d 75
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Eric Kurisoo was injured when his motorcycle collided with a car driven by Harry Ziegler during an antique car tour sponsored by Mystic Seaport Museum (Mystic Seaport).
- Ziegler had registered and paid a fee for the event, received printed driving directions and a banner directing participants to the show, and participated in an independently driven, volunteer-organized scenic tour without traffic control or escorts.
- Kurisoo sued Ziegler and Mystic Seaport: initially alleging direct negligence by Mystic Seaport; later amending to add vicarious liability for Ziegler’s negligence.
- Mystic Seaport moved for summary judgment on the direct negligence count arguing lack of foreseeability (no duty). The trial court rejected foreseeability as a jury question but sua sponte granted summary judgment on public policy grounds (an unraised basis).
- Mystic Seaport later moved for summary judgment on vicarious liability arguing Ziegler was not its agent; the trial court found factual disputes on agency but again granted judgment relying on its earlier public-policy ruling and concluded no duty existed.
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding the trial court improperly granted summary judgment on a ground (public policy) that Mystic Seaport had not raised or briefed in either motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mystic Seaport owed a duty under negligence (foreseeability/prong 1) | Kurisoo: reasonable jury could find harm was foreseeable given the event directions and organization | Mystic Seaport: its alleged conduct did not create a reasonably foreseeable risk that a participant would pull into oncoming traffic | Court: trial court rejected defendant’s foreseeability argument as for jury; summary judgment on this issue was improper because court did not grant on defendant’s raised ground |
| Whether public policy (prong 2) precludes imposing a duty on Mystic Seaport | Kurisoo: court should not decide an unbriefed public policy bar on summary judgment | Mystic Seaport: did not argue public-policy bar in motions (only cited cases in brief footnote) | Court: trial court erred by deciding public-policy issue not raised by parties; summary judgment cannot rest on unraised ground |
| Whether Mystic Seaport is vicariously liable for Ziegler (agency) | Kurisoo: vicarious liability viable because facts could support agency | Mystic Seaport: Ziegler was not agent/employee/servant at time of collision | Court: material factual dispute on agency exists; trial court improperly resolved case by relying on prior unraised public-policy rationale instead of defendant’s agency argument |
| Whether trial court may grant summary judgment on grounds not raised by movant | Kurisoo: court lacked authority to grant judgment on unargued ground | Mystic Seaport: implied public-policy issues via citations; did not expressly argue them | Held: Trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground the movant did not raise or brief; both motions should have been denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz v. Victory Properties, LLC, 315 Conn. 320 (2015) (two-prong duty analysis: foreseeability and public-policy extension of duty)
- Ferri v. Powell-Ferri, 317 Conn. 223 (2015) (summary judgment standards; movant’s burden and plenary review)
- Greene v. Keating, 156 Conn. App. 854 (2015) (trial court generally limited to issues raised by parties; may not decide unbriefed issues)
- Bombero v. Bombero, 160 Conn. App. 118 (2015) (court should adjudicate issues presented on the proof submitted)