Rockhill v. Danbury Hospital
168 A.3d 630
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Anna Rockhill (business invitee) tripped on a defect while walking from Danbury Hospital to its parking lot on June 16, 2010, fell, and suffered fractures to her right toe/foot and later chronic low‑back pain requiring injections and lumbar decompression surgery.
- Hospital security and ED staff prepared reports noting a chipped/cracked slab or "divot" at the end of the crosswalk; security photos of the area were admitted at trial.
- Rockhill and her daughter testified about feeling/seeing the plaintiff hit the raised/chipped slab; emergency records documented the fall and a bump in the walkway.
- Trial to the court resulted in judgment for Rockhill: total damages of $181,076.45, reduced 40% for contributory negligence, yielding $108,645.87 plus costs.
- Defendant appealed, challenging (1) foreseeability/triviality of the defect, (2) causation of the fall, (3) that all medical costs stemmed from the fall (exacerbation of preexisting spinal stenosis), and (4) admission of the plaintiff’s treating physician (Dr. Kramer) as an expert on causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the pavement "divot" a reasonably foreseeable hazard (trivial‑defect question)? | Rockhill: size/orientation was for finder of fact; evidence shows a chipped, visible defect in a well‑worn, heavily traveled crosswalk that existed long enough for constructive notice. | Hospital: defect was trivial/too small as a matter of law and the court should dismiss it under a de minimis rule. | Court: rejected a bright‑line trivial‑defect rule; reasonable evidence supported factfinder’s conclusion that the defect was foreseeable and not clearly erroneous. |
| Did the divot actually cause Rockhill’s fall? | Rockhill: testimony, security report, and photos support that she struck the chipped slab and fell. | Hospital: testimony that she hit "something" is imprecise/speculative; no direct proof the divot caused the injury. | Court: drew reasonable inferences from witness testimony, reports, and photos; upheld finding that the divot was the actual cause. |
| Were Rockhill’s medical expenses (including surgery) caused by the fall or by preexisting spinal stenosis? | Rockhill: fall substantially accelerated symptoms; treating physician and contemporaneous records show worsening after fall; eggshell‑plaintiff rule applies. | Hospital: expert apportionment acknowledged degenerative cause; only part of impairment attributable to fall, so trial court erred in awarding all costs to fall. | Court: affirmed that fall was a substantial factor exacerbating a dormant condition; evidence supported awarding all medical costs attributable to exacerbation. |
| Was Dr. Kramer’s causation testimony properly admitted? | Rockhill: Kramer relied on patient history and medical records (admissible foundation); opinion was reasonable and for the trier of fact to weigh. | Hospital: Kramer’s opinion was based on hearsay/patient statements and included an "arbitrary" apportionment, so it lacked sufficient factual basis. | Court: admissible — physician may rely on patient history and records; Kramer’s opinion had a reasonable evidentiary foundation and was for the factfinder to weigh. |
Key Cases Cited
- Older v. Old Lyme, 124 Conn. 283 (Conn. 1938) (discusses highway defect standard and limits of liability where defect was slight and off ordinary pedestrian path)
- Alston v. New Haven, 134 Conn. 686 (Conn. 1948) (refuses to adopt broader appellate fact‑weighing to declare small defects trivial as matter of law)
- Ruiz v. Victory Properties, LLC, 315 Conn. 320 (Conn. 2015) (foreseeability is ordinarily a question for the factfinder)
- Doe v. Saint Francis Hospital & Medical Center, 309 Conn. 146 (Conn. 2013) (issues of foreseeability and factfinder’s role in premises cases)
- Porto v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., 167 Conn. App. 573 (Conn. App. 2016) (business‑invitee duty and notice requirements)
- Tuite v. Stop & Shop Cos., 45 Conn. App. 305 (Conn. App. 1997) (dormant/preexisting condition and recovery for exacerbation)
- Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc., 263 Conn. 424 (Conn. 2003) (substantial‑factor test for proximate cause)
- George v. Ericson, 250 Conn. 312 (Conn. 1999) (physician may base opinion on patient statements for treatment purposes)
- Sullivan v. Metro‑North Commuter R.R. Co., 292 Conn. 150 (Conn. 2009) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony)