Page 38 - CLT060721

38 ■ JUNE 7, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
drove through a stop sign and hit the plaintiff, In count 1, plaintiff claimed that defendant bar
Genevieve Lanuto, on her passenger door caus- served Rutledge alcohol while he was intoxi-
ing Lanuto injuries. Lanuto later brought suit cated. The court denied summary judgment on
against Davis, alleging negligence and reckless this count because Rutledge testified that he had
disregard for the safety of others. Davis moved been served alcohol when already intoxicated.
for summary judgment against Lanuto on the In the second count, plaintiff alleged that de-
recklessness claim, alleging that there was no fendant negligently supervised a patron and vio-
evidence that she was traveling at an excessive lated its duty to protect patrons from harm. The
or unreasonable speed, or operating her vehicle court held that since the assault happened in the
in any other way that was reckless. The court parking lot, which was a municipal parking lot,
agreed and granted summary judgment as to defendant owed no duty to plaintiff once he left
the reckless claim. the premises. The court held that the bar met its
burden of demonstrating an absence of a genu-
PERSONAL INJURY ine issue of material fact and granted summary
judgment to the defendant on count 2.
Emotional Distress Claim Stricken
Where Harm Unforeseeable PERSONAL INJURY • GOVERNMENT
CASE: Jones v. Bertucci’s Rest. Corp. Employees of School Board are
COURT: New Britain J.D. Agents of City
DOC. NO.: CV-20-6062715
COURT OPINION BY: Wiese CASE: Allister v. Labombard
DATE: May 11, 2021 • PAGES: 6 COURT: New Britain J.D.
Plaintiffs purchased lasagna from defendant DOC. NO.: CV-19-6053097
restaurant, they saw a sheet of plastic in the COURT OPINION BY: Shortall
middle of the lasagna and returned it to the DATE: May 06, 2021 • PAGES: 18
restaurant. Plaintiffs brought a claim of neg- Plaintiff Keegan Allister was a student in a
ligent infliction of emotional distress and a high school biology student when he was in-
products liability action against the defendant, jured by another student. That student “had a
and defendant moved to strike. The court recent history of violence when he was upset or
noted that plaintiffs did not ever attempt to agitated by events at school;” the student as-
eat the plastic, and found plaintiffs’ reaction saulted minor plaintiff was asked by his teach-
to seeing the plastic was unreasonable. The er to put his cell phone away. Plaintiff’s mother
court further found the alleged harm was un- filed suit, asserting that the teacher failed to ap-
foreseeable by defendant, and further found propriately supervise his students and that the
there was no legally cognizable claim for by- school board failed to hire a teacher who could
stander emotional distress. The court granted safely conduct a biology class. The defendants
defendant’s motion to strike. sought summary judgment, asserting that they
were immune from suit. Plaintiffs objected, ar-
No Violation of Dram Shop Act When guing that there were genuine issues of material
Assault Happens Off-Premises fact affecting whether defendants were entitled
to governmental immunity. School policy pro-
CASE: Clark v. Center Three, LLC hibited student using cell phones during class
COURT: New Britain J.D. and directed teachers to tell students to put
DOC. NO.: CV-20-6045970 them away. The court found that the teacher
COURT OPINION BY: Wiese fulfilled his duty and used discretion in deter-
DATE: April 30, 2021 • PAGES: 9 mining how to carry out his duty. Yet, his im-
Plaintiff was a patron at a bar. Defendant Rut- munity was subject to protecting an identifi-
ledge physically assaulted him. Plaintiff brought able person from imminent harm. However, the
suit against both the bar and the assaulter, ar- court was not able to determine whether the
guing that Rutledge assaulted him because he teacher should have been aware of the student’s
had too much to drink and that the bar had violent history. Because a reasonable jury could
a duty to stop serving him. Defendant Center have found that the student was an imminent
Three argued that it had not violated the Dram risk, the court denied summary judgment as to
Shop Act and moved for summary judgment. the teacher. The court also denied the motions
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune