170 Conn. App. 70
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Plaintiff Rose Rivera fell on a walkway at the Woodbury apartment complex after losing sight of an "elongated step" in an unlit area and alleged injuries from lack of lighting and absence of a handrail.
- The complex is owned by CR Summer Hill, LP and managed by Carabetta Property Management; Franco Pulino was the building manager who inspected the grounds twice per workday in winter.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence (premises liability) alleging defendants failed to provide adequate lighting and a handrail; defendants moved for summary judgment conceding defect existence but denying notice.
- Defendants submitted Pulino’s affidavit stating no complaints or observed defects before the fall; plaintiff relied on her deposition testimony describing the pitch-black area and no handrail.
- Evidence showed Pulino would have passed the area at least 62 times during the winter inspection period before the fall. Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no genuine issue of notice.
- Appellate court reversed, holding constructive notice as to inadequate lighting and lack of handrail was an issue for the factfinder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants had constructive notice of inadequate lighting | Rivera: Pulino walked the area ~62 times before fall; a reasonable inspector would have noticed and remedied lack of lighting | Defendants: No actual or constructive notice; no complaints and manager didn’t observe defects | Reversed: Constructive notice is a triable issue; factfinder may infer notice from repeated inspections and duration |
| Whether defendants had constructive notice of lack of handrail | Rivera: Same inspection frequency supports inference that lack of handrail would have been noticed | Defendants: No evidence they knew or should have known of handrail absence | Reversed: Whether lack of handrail existed long enough to be discovered is for jury |
| Whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment | Rivera: Deposition plus inspection frequency creates genuine dispute of material fact | Defendants: Plaintiff offered no contrary affidavits or reports—only her testimony | Court: Plaintiff’s evidence sufficed to create a factual dispute on constructive notice |
| Whether ownership/control alone permits inference of notice | Rivera: (not advanced as primary on appeal) | Defendants: Ownership/control does not itself establish notice | Court: Ownership/control not relied on; constructive notice turns on duration and discoverability, not mere ownership |
Key Cases Cited
- DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 306 Conn. 107 (recognizes plaintiff must prove actual or constructive notice of the specific defect in premises liability)
- Barile v. LensCrafters, Inc., 74 Conn. App. 283 (discusses summary judgment standards and party burdens)
- James v. Valley-Shore Y.M.C.A., Inc., 125 Conn. App. 174 (constructive notice depends on whether condition existed long enough to be discovered)
- In re Kristy A., 83 Conn. App. 298 (jury may apply common sense and life experience when inferring facts)