Page 32 - CLT041221

32 ¦ APRIL 12, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

her burden to prove that she made diligent and DAMAGES
persistent efforts to determine Haun’s address.
Plaintiff claimed that the court had personal Plaintiff Awarded Economic and Non-
jurisdiction over Haun due to the marshal’s de- Economic Damages Following Car
livery of writ, summons, and complaint to the
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. The court Accident
denied that this constituted sufficient and con-
structive notice to Haun and granted the motion CASE: Motroni v. Wetzel
to dismiss. Regarding the long-arm statute and COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
Tankstar, the court found that Tankstar did not DOC. NO.: CV-19-6109402
employ Haun or own the tanker truck involved COURT OPINION BY: Noble
in the accident, and the court granted their mo- DATE: March 19, 2021 • PAGES: 3
tion to dismiss.
Plaintiff was rear-ended by a vehicle driven
by one defendant and owned by the other de-
fendant. Plaintiff initially did not report an
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES • DAMAGES injury but later plaintiff suffered neck pain,
bilateral arm paresthesia lumbar pain and
Damages Awarded where Vessel headaches. The court found that plaintiff ’s
Mooring Failed injuries interfered with her ability to partici-
pate in some activities, though it denied that
the injuries prevented her from renewing her
CASE: O’Sullivan v. Plaut employment contract. Plaintiff was awarded
COURT: New London J.D. at New London
DOC. NO.: CV-18-6038277 $56,223.49 for medical bills and lost wages,
COURT OPINION BY: Jongbloed and another $70,000 for noneconomic dam-
DATE: March 12, 2021 • PAGES: 17 ages for pain and suffering, permanent injury,
Plaintiff owned a sailing vessel, and bought and loss or diminution of the ability to enjoy
a used mooring assembly manufactured and life’s pleasures.
sold by the defendant Plaut Environmental to
dock the vessel. At the time of purchase, de-
fendant provided a mooring inspection report EVIDENCE • PREMISES LIABILITY

indicating the mooring was “acceptable for Department Store Loses Fight on Bill of
use.” Plaintiff left the boat moored in unpro- Particulars
tected waters during a summer storm, and the
mooring chain failed causing the boat to break
loose and collide with the nearby rocky shore- CASE: Bartels v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.
line. The boat was damaged to a complete loss, COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven
and the plaintiff brought a negligence action DOC. NO.: CV-21-6111041
against defendant for the damages sustained. COURT OPINION BY: Wilson
DATE: March 19, 2021 • PAGES: 17
The court found plaintiff was at least partially A woman, who was injured by a department
responsible for the damage for failure to dock store automatic door, successfully showed that
the boat in a safer condition during the on- she was entitled to surveillance video in her
coming storm, however also found defendant verified petition for bill of discovery. On June
knew or should have known the mooring chain 13, 2020, the petitioner, Maureen P. Bartels,
had deteriorated to an unacceptable condition attempted to enter a Petco store when the au-
upon installation for the season. The defen- tomatic door malfunctioned and injured her.
dant brought the special defense of the Loui- Bartels placed Petco on notice and requested
siana rule, arguing plaintiff ’s claim was barred Petco preserve video footage and provide the
by the presumption that the vessel owner is footage to Bartels. Petco refused, arguing that
responsible for consequent damages when the it was required to be obtained through dis-
vessel breaks free from its mooring, however covery, and Bartels filed a petition for bill of
the court found they had already concluded discovery seeking the footage and the door in-
to negligence on the part of the mooring pro- formation. The court granted Bartels’ petition
vider. The court evaluated the value of the ves- as to the footage and limited door information
sel and the plaintiff ’s contributory negligence and ruled that Bartels had alleged sufficient
(65% contributory), and awarded damages of details showing a potential premises liability
approximately $9,800 to the plaintiff. claim against Petco.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune