Page 29 - CLT062821

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 28, 2021 ■ 29
PERSONAL INJURY emotional distress, and breach claims. On bailment,
defendant claimed there was no understanding or
Motion for Summary Judgment Denied relationship of understanding related to the vehi-
Where Ministerial Duties Not Formally cle, while plaintiff argued the parties understood
the vehicle was only in defendant’s possession until
Written as Directives after probate. The court agreed with defendant, and
found that the parties were disputing the ownership
CASE: Prezioso v. City of New Haven of the vehicle rather than their having an “under-
COURT: New Haven J.D. standing” about bailment of the vehicle. The court
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6092252 further agreed with defendant that Connecticut
COURT OPINION BY: Blue does not recognize claims for unintentional emo-
DATE: June 04, 2021 • PAGES: 4 tional distress resulting in property damage alone,
Plaintiff was attending his son’s little league base- and plaintiff presented insufficient claims that de-
ball game at a local park owned and operated by fendant acted intentionally. The court granted the
the defendant city. Plaintiff was walking along defendant’s motions to strike.
the bleachers to the field when he stepped on a
bottom bleacher seat which was not properly at- PERSONAL INJURY • DAMAGES
tached, causing him to fall and suffer injuries.
Plaintiff brought a claim against the city alleg-
ing negligence in failing to properly inspect the Delivery Driver Awarded Damages
bleachers, and the city moved for summary judg- After Assault
ment arguing they were entitled to governmental
immunity. Although inspection of the bleachers CASE: Keel v. Amadon
COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven
was not a written ministerial duty for park work- DOC. NO.: CV-196094290-S
ers, the court credited the testimony of the park COURT OPINION BY: Wilson
employees in that inspection of the bleachers was DATE: June 04, 2021 • PAGES: 13
a ministerial duty expected of the employees. The Plaintiff alleged defendant assaulted her; defen-
court therefore found the question of whether or dant filed an answer denying the material allega-
not inspection of the bleachers was ministerial or tions of the complaint and raising the special de-
discretionary was a question for the fact finder, fense of self-defense. Plaintiff was driving a FedEx
and denied the motion for summary judgment. truck; she parked in defendant’s driveway while
she was looking for directions. Defendant con-
Motion to Strike Bailment Claim fronted her, ultimately slamming plaintiff’s truck
Granted Where Possession of Vehicle door into her nose and causing it to bleed. The de-
fendant alleges that plaintiff attacked him and he
Remained in Dispute had to take her to the ground in order to defend
himself. The court found that plaintiff’s account
CASE: Mulvey v. Trabka
COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport of the events was more credible. Defendant’s ac-
DOC. NO.: CV-20-609-8504 tions were outrageous and unnecessary, the court
COURT OPINION BY: Jacobs ruled, as plaintiff was merely trying to do her job.
DATE: June 03, 2021 • PAGES: 13 The court found that the defendant was 100% re-
Plaintiff and defendant’s ex-husband John were in a sponsible for the incident and awarded economic
romantic relationship and plaintiff’s 1963 Corvette and non-economic damages to plaintiff.
was garaged at John’s home. Upon John’s death,
defendant had the car towed to her home, assum- PERSONAL INJURY • MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
ing that John’s son would inherit the car. Thirteen
months after John’s death, the car was found to be Negligence Claim Tolled Against
owned by plaintiff by the Trumbull Probate Court, Physician for Continuing Course of
and was ordered back into the possession of plain-
tiff. Upon receiving the vehicle, plaintiff discov- Conduct
ered property damage to the car and commenced CASE: O’Donnell v. Levesque
an action against defendant for bailment, negli- COURT: Waterbury J.D., Complex Litigation Docket
gence, emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary DOC. NO.: CV-17-6045271
duty and a Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act COURT OPINION BY: Bellis
claim. Defendant moved to strike the bailment, DATE: June 04, 2021 • PAGES: 8
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune