Page 34 - CLT041221

34 ¦ APRIL 12, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

was invalid because the recovery parameters were Court Denies Summary Judgment
unconscionable, defendant breached the implied Where Plaintiff’s Deposition Somewhat
covenant of good faith and fair dealings, and de- Inconsistent
fendant committed fraud by willfully withhold-
ing evidence relevant to the employee on duty the
night of the incident until after the agreement CASE: Murray v. HTA-YLW New Haven LLC
was signed. The court found there was insufficient COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven
evidence that defendant made a false representa- DOC. NO.: CV-19-6093411
tion of fact at the time of the agreement because COURT OPINION BY: Wilson
they provided all specific discovery requested, DATE: March 22, 2021 • PAGES: 8
and found there was insufficient evidence that de-
fendant knowingly withheld any of the requested Plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell
employee files or employee manuals. The court down a set of stairs on the premises of a prop-
found there was no absence of meaningful choice erty owned and operated by defendant. Plaintiff
as to the recovery parameters in the arbitration brought a claim for negligence, arguing failure to
agreement or any procedural unconscionability, maintain and inspect the interior stairs, failure to
and that therefore there was no breach of the maintain adequate lighting, and that defendant
good faith dealing implied covenant. The court otherwise failed to warn of the dangerous condi-
granted defendant’s motion to enforce arbitra- tion of the staircase. Defendant moved for sum-
tion and stay. mary judgment, arguing plaintiff failed to iden-
tify or prove a specific defect which caused him to
fall, pointing to excerpts from the plaintiff’s de-
position. The court found that, reading the plain-
PERSONAL INJURY • PREMISES LIABILITY tiff’s deposition in its entirety, the plaintiff did
indeed identify the specific defect which caused
Court Denies Summary Judgment in him to fall, although he was inconsistent at some
Snow and Ice Slip-and-Fall portions of the deposition as to where the rubber
strip on which he slipped was located. The court
CASE: Rinfret v. Harbor Point Planned Cmty. Ass’n found that although this may cause a question of
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford credibility in the plaintiff’s testimony, such ques-
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6042370 tion is one for the jury. As such, the court denied
COURT OPINION BY: Krumeich
DATE: March 17, 2021 • PAGES: 13 summary judgment.

Plaintiff was injured when she slipped on an ac- PERSONAL INJURY • REAL ESTATE
cumulation of snow and ice at a property owned
by defendant Harbor Point, who had contract-
ed with defendant ELM to remove the snow. Court Declines Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff brought negligence and nuisance claims where Notice Cited Wrong Address of
against both defendants. First, ELM moved for Incident
summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff
failed to name them or any other snow and ice CASE: Iam v. 542 Arch St., LLC
removal contractor in their initial suit, and the COURT: New Haven J.D. at Meriden
statute of limitations had since expired, however DOC. NO.: CV-20-6020333
the court found the action was saved by the plain- COURT OPINION BY: Sizemore
tiff ’s service within one year after termination of DATE: March 18, 2021 • PAGES: 10
the first action. Further, the court found there Plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell as
was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a result of a deteriorated and degrading sidewalk
defendants had notice of the accumulated snow located within the city of New Britain, outside
and ice because defendants themselves had piled property owned by defendant 542 Arch Street.
the snow near to the sidewalk where the plain- Plaintiff brought a negligence claim against de-
tiff slipped. Defendant Harbor Point argued the fendant 542 Arch Street and the city of New Brit-
plaintiff could not satisfy the nuisance claim be- ain, specifically alleging that the city breached
cause a single patch of ice is transitionary and not their duty of care to keep the sidewalks safe for
“continuing” as defined by the statute, however public use, failure to warn, and failure to inspect.
the court found this was also a genuine issue of The city moved to dismiss, arguing they did not
material fact because the accumulation of snow receive proper notice of the suit in that it listed
is a repeating and recurring event. the wrong address of where the incident occurred,

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune