Page 30 - CLT062821

30 ■ JUNE 28, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
Defendant, a specialist in diagnostic radiolo- PERSONAL INJURY • WRONGFUL DEATH
gy, undertook the care and treatment of plain-
tiff’s decedent. In a 2011 MRI conducted by Summary Judgment Denied in
defendant, a brain tumor was clearly recog- Negligence Claim Against Municipal
nizable and unequivocally present, however
defendant failed to report and treat the brain 9-1-1 Dispatchers who Failed to
tumor until another MRI in 2015. Plaintiff, Provide Assistance
on behalf of the decedent, brought a claim
against defendant for the injuries suffered by CASE: Bogan v. City of New Haven
decedent during the four-year span where the COURT: New Haven J.D.
tumor was present and defendant failed to DOC. NO.: CV-18-6082184
treat or exercise the degree of skill and care COURT OPINION BY: Young
DATE: June 09, 2021 • PAGES: 31
used by physicians specializing in radiology. Decedent died of her injuries following an attack by
Defendant moved for summary judgment two dogs. The incident allegedly took place in the
against the plaintiff’s negligence claims, argu- city of New Haven, and the defendants represent
ing they were time-barred because they were 9-1-1 dispatchers and their supervisors who were
brought six years after the date of the alleged working for the city at the time of the attack. The
negligence. Plaintiff argued the continuous plaintiff, on behalf of the decedent’s estate, brought
course of conduct doctrine applied, tolling claims against defendants concerning the lack of
the negligence claim. The court agreed with response to three calls for assistance, including
plaintiff, finding that the decedent and defen- counts of negligence, negligent supervision, wrong-
dant had a special physician-patient relation- ful death, and indemnification. The defendants as-
ship which may have given rise to a continuing serted special defenses of governmental immunity
duty to warn. The court denied the motion for and moved for summary judgment, further alleg-
summary judgment. ing they owed no duty to decedent and their acts
or omissions were not the legal cause of the injuries
PERSONAL INJURY • PREMISES LIABILITY and death. Plaintiff argued that, as a result of the
defendants’ negligent handling of the 9-1-1 calls, no
emergency police or medical response came to the
Store Fails to Obtain Summary scene until 15 minutes after the initial call. Defen-
Judgment in Slip and Fall Case dants argued they were subject to governmental im-
munity because the classification and handling of
CASE: Cassiano v. Walmart, Inc. emergency calls is discretionary rather than minis-
COURT: New Britain J.D. terial. However, the court noted a municipality may
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6055429 still be liable for a discretionary act where there is
COURT OPINION BY: Wiese an identifiable person subject to imminent harm.
DATE: June 02, 2021 • PAGES: 9 In analyzing the transcripts of the calls, the court
A store, that attempted to get a slip and fall found there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether
case dismissed at summary judgment, was the victim was identifiable and harm was imminent.
unable to prove that there were no genuine The court further found there was a genuine issue
issues of material fact. In 2019 the plaintiff, as to whether the response was simply negligent, or
slipped and fell on a slippery liquid inside a result of gross negligence under General Statutes
a Walmart, and subsequently filed against §7-311. The court denied the defendants’ motions
defendants Walmart, Inc. and Wal-Mart for summary judgment.
Stores, East. Both defendants filed for sum-
mary judgment, arguing that there was no REAL ESTATE
evidence of actual or constructive notice, and
that Walmart, Inc. did not have possession Fence Installment Must Allow Neighbor
or control of the premises at the time of the
injury. While the court granted the motion Access to Tool Shed
as to Walmart, Inc., it refused to grant it for CASE: Chaney-Jones v. Beaulieu
Wal-Mart Stores, as there were still genuine COURT: Hartford J.D.
issues of material fact as to whether Wal- DOC. NO.: CV-19-6113558
Mart Stores knew or should have known that COURT OPINION BY: Budzik
the spill was there and remedied it. DATE: June 08, 2021 • PAGES: 9
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune