Page 36 - CLT072720

36 ¦ JULY 27, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

the decedent’s placement of the ladder. There- exposed water company fixture that was raised
fore, the court granted defendant’s motion for in the roadway. Defendants moved for summary
summary judgment. judgment, arguing that plaintiff ’s fall was caused
by his own negligence, in that he was outside the
crosswalk when he fell. The parties’ evidence
Court Grants Motion To Strike For showed that the road had recently been milled
Negligence On Dram Shop Act at the time plaintiff fell. As a result of the mill-
ing, the painted lines that previously marked the
CASE: Nodine v. Pedros crosswalk no longer existed. Defendants submit-
COURT: Ansonia-Milford J.D. at Milford ted photographs in support of their contention
DOC. NO.: CV-18-6027367 that the crosswalk markings were still appar-
COURT OPINION BY: Tyma ent, but the court was unpersuaded. Although
DATE: May 15, 2020 • PAGES: 8
Defendants owned and operated a bar in a defendants might be able to discern crosswalk
shopping plaza. Plaintiff alleged that the bar markings, a jury, or some member of it, might
and bartender overpoured a patron of the bar, not see the same. The court accordingly denied
who subsequently exited the bar and assaulted defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

plaintiff, causing injury. Plaintiff brought seven
counts against the bar and owners, including PERSONAL INJURY • SOCIAL MEDIA
negligent and reckless service of alcohol. Defen-
dant sought to strike all counts: negligence on Defendant in Defamation Action Failed
the grounds that the claims are precluded due to Show That Allegations of Criminal
to the state’s Dram Shop Act, and recklessness
for failing to sufficiently set a claim. The court Activity Were True
agreed on the negligence claim, and granted the
motion to strike due to the Dram Shop Act. CASE: Rockoff v. Annulli
However, the court found similarity between a COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
negligence claim and a recklessness claim was DOC. NO.: CV20-6122116
not sufficient grounds to strike the recklessness COURT OPINION BY: Taylor
claim. The reckless service of alcohol claim al- DATE: July 02, 2020 • PAGES: 11
leged the bar continued to serve plaintiff ’s as-
The court denied defendant’s special motion to
dismiss a defamation action, finding that her
sailant while knowing he was an alcoholic and failure to prove her claim of illegal activity de-
likely would not be able to control his behav- feated her assertion that her alleged defamatory
ior. The court granted the motion to strike on statements constituted protected free speech
negligence, but denied the motion to strike on about a matter of public concern. Defendant,
recklessness. a home buyer, posted a Yelp review describing
realtor Kevin Rockoff as careless, disorganized,
Triable Issues of Fact As to Whether and incompetent. Defendant further asserted
Crosswalk Markings Remained that Rockoff had engaged in illegal activity by
Discernible Following Milling of giving her deposit checks directly to the sellers
without holding them in escrow. Rockoff and
his company sued defendant for defamation.
Roadway Defendant filed a special motion to dismiss the

CASE: Friedman v. Redeker complaint under G.S. §52-196a, based upon her
COURT: Ansonia-Milford J.D. at Milford right to free speech. The court denied the mo-
DOC. NO.: CV18-6030185 tion. At issue was defendant’s assertion that
COURT OPINION BY: Tyma plaintiff violated state law by failing to place her
DATE: June 01, 2020 • PAGES: 9 deposit checks in escrow. Criminal activity by a
The court denied defendants’ motions for sum- realtor would be a matter of public concern, to
mary judgment, finding triable issues of fact as which defendants’ free speech rights would at-
to whether there were discernible lines marking tach. In moving to dismiss, however, defendant
the crosswalk at the intersection where plaintiff presented no evidence to support her assertion
tripped and fell. Plaintiff fell while crossing a of illegal activity. Plaintiff, on the other hand,
public road in Milford. He sued the town and offered evidence of plaintiff ’s checks having
its commissioner of transportation for his inju- been properly deposited into his escrow ac-
ries, alleging that he fell after tripping over an count. Although plaintiff made no showing as

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune