139 Conn. App. 618
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Mott sued Wal-Mart for premises liability after slipping on ice in Wal-Mart's parking lot in 2009.
- Plaintiff alleged Wal-Mart failed to maintain safe premises, inspect for ice, warn of danger, or remedy the condition.
- Wal-Mart answered denying negligence and asserting contributory negligence.
- Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment under Practice Book § 17-44, arguing no notice of the ice defect.
- Plaintiff opposed with August 2011 filing, asserting disputed notice but failed to attach affidavits or documentary evidence at that time.
- Court granted summary judgment on Sept. 13, 2011, based on plaintiff's noncompliance with documentary evidence rules; plaintiff later submitted a supplemental memorandum with an incident report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on notice without proper evidentiary support | Mott argues genuine issue of fact exists as to notice; he lacked time to attach documents | Wal-Mart contends it met burden and plaintiff failed to show no issue of material fact | No, reversal; defendant failed to negate notice; ruling incorrect |
| Whether defendant carried its initial burden to negate notice with the evidence before the court | Plaintiff asserts deposition alone cannot negate notice | Defendant claims deposition supports no notice | No, remand required; defendant failed to meet initial burden |
| Whether plaintiff's supplemental evidence could create a genuine issue of fact | Incident report and weather data could show notice | Timeliness and admissibility of supplemental evidence were improper | No, court reversed regardless of supplemental evidence |
| Whether the court properly applied Practice Book §§ 17-45 and 17-46 regarding opposition evidence | Nonmovant need not file affidavits if movant fails to negate facts | Opposing affidavits required when movant meets burden | Yes, standard misapplied; reversal for lack of initial burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Barron, 269 Conn. 394 (Conn. 2004) (burden does not shift if movant fails to show no genuine issue)
- Rafalko v. University of New Haven, 129 Conn. App. 44 (Conn. App. 2011) (opposition requires evidentiary foundation for genuine issue)
- Barile v. LensCrafters, Inc., 74 Conn. App. 283 (Conn. App. 2002) (timeliness of evidence; late submissions may be rejected)
- Lefebvre v. Zarka, 106 Conn. App. 30 (Conn. App. 2008) (distinguishes when movant’s evidence supports no issue)
- Chase Manhattan Bank v. CDC Financial Corp., 54 Conn. App. 705 (Conn. App. 1999) (distinguishes movant’s proof of lack of issues)
- Inwood Condominium Assn. v. Winer, 49 Conn. App. 694 (Conn. App. 1998) (untimely documents and burden shifting)