Page 39 - CLT032221
P. 39
CONNECTICUT OPINIONS MARCH 22, 2021 ¦ 39
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE Defendant’s car ran out of gas and came to a
stop while traveling on a three-lane, northbound
Motion for Summary Judgment Denied roadway late at night. Defendant left the car to
Where Former Patient’s Suicide Could fetch roadside assistance, leaving the vehicle
Have Been Foreseen by Defendant in the middle lane of the roadway with flash-
Physician ing hazard lights illuminated, in a relatively
dark section of an underpass. Plaintiff entered
the roadway traveling north and collided with
CASE: Davenport v. Belniak defendant’s vehicle, leaving no direct or cir-
COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford cumstantial evidence that plaintiff attempted
DOC. NO.: CV-18-6096136 to avoid the collision. Plaintiff was treated for
COURT OPINION BY: Noble
DATE: February 19, 2021 • PAGES: 7 injuries and suffered headaches several months
after the incident. Plaintiff brought a negligence
Decedent came under the care and treatment claim against defendant for damages related to
of defendant doctor in 2016 for an arthroplasty his medical bills, and the court found in favor
surgery and recovery. Plaintiff alleged that de- of the defendant. The court found that, while
fendant deviated from the appropriate standard defendant was partially negligent for failing to
of care by misplacing a surgical screw in the de- maintain sufficient gas to prevent his car from
cedent’s person during the treatment, and that stopping in the middle of the roadway, the plain-
defendant’s staff injured decedent when a nurse tiff was also more than 50% negligent in causing
negligently allowed his leg to hit the floor during a the accident for failing to maintain attention to
failed transfer of decedent from chair to bed. The his surroundings and failing to use reasonable
decedent allegedly suffered such severe emotional care to avoid the accident. In its role as fact find-
and mental anguish as a result of his treatment er, the court found plaintiff had sufficient time
that he took his own life 17 months after his final and opportunity to see defendant’s vehicle and
treatment with defendant. Plaintiff brought med- avoid the collision.
ical malpractice and negligence claims against
defendant for wrongful death, injuries, and loss
of consortium, and defendant moved for summa- PERSONAL INJURY
ry judgment. Defendant argued that the plaintiff Defendant’s Motion for Summary
testified the decedent’s death was a “total shock”
to her, and therefore completely unforeseeable Judgment Denied in Slip and Fall Suit
and not proximately caused by defendant, and
that defendant did not have any special relation- CASE: Patrissi v. C&L Diners LLC
ship or control over the decedent which would COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
impose liability. The court found that, even if the DOC. NO.: CV-19-6107211
decedent’s suicide was unforeseeable by his fam- COURT OPINION BY: Taylor
ily, that did not mean as a matter of law it was un- DATE: February 26, 2021 • PAGES: 7
foreseeable for the defendants. The court there-
fore found there was a genuine issue of material Plaintiff was walking into the restaurant when
fact as to whether the defendants should have she slipped on ice and sustained injuries. Plaintiff
anticipated the decedent’s suicide, and denied the claims that her nephew noticed preexisting ice—
motion for summary judgment. with no sand or ice applied to it—before plaintiff
arrived at the restaurant and alerted restaurant
staff. Plaintiff claims that staff did not treat ice or
warn patrons. Defendant sought summary judg-
MOTOR VEHICLE TORTS • PERSONAL INJURY ment due to the fact that, when plaintiff fell and
Plaintiff Found to be More than 50% was injured on its sidewalk, there was an ongo-
ing storm. Defendant asserted that newly fallen
snow was the proximate cause of the fall. Defen-
Negligent in Motor Vehicle Collision dant also suggested that nephew did not witness
Negligence Claim plaintiff’s fall and could not verify how the fall
had occurred. The facts taken together, the court
CASE: Duquette v. Perry held, formed a genuine issue of material fact of
COURT: J.D. of Hartford at Hartford what the proximate cause of the fall was such
DOC. NO.: HHD-CV-19-6104544-S that should be held by a trier of fact. Summary
COURT OPINION BY: Budzik
DATE: February 22, 2021 • PAGES: 5 judgment was denied.
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune
