Page 32 - CLT122120

32 ¦ DECEMBER 21, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

Keeper of Dog May Sue Owner for found exact and absolute precision in the statu-
Negligence but Not for Strict Liability tory notice was not a requirement, and denied
the motion to dismiss finding the subject of ad-
CASE: Nishimura v. Muir equate notice was a question for the jury, and
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford not the court to decide.
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6044028
COURT OPINION BY: Krumeich
DATE: November 27, 2020 • PAGES: 6 PERSONAL INJURY • CONTRACTS

The court granted in part and denied in part de- Court Grants in Part and Denies in Part
fendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding
no good reason to immunize her from liability for Motion to Strike Counterclaim
a dog bite where all the elements of common law
liability were satisfied. Plaintiff agreed to take de- CASE: Molleturo v. Dominguez
fendant’s dog to plaintiff’s home and care for the COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
dog while defendant was away on a trip. While DOC. NO.: CV-19604107
plaintiff was caring for the dog, the dog bit her. COURT OPINION BY: Genuario
Plaintiff sued defendant, alleging strict liability DATE: December 01, 2020 • PAGES: 10
and negligence. Defendant moved for summary
judgment. The court granted summary judgment Plaintiff Molleturo and defendant Dominguez
as to plaintiff’s strict liability claim only, explain- were employees of the intervening plaintiff Splash
ing that the “keeper” of a dog cannot bring a Exit 13, an automotive cleaning service center.
claim against the dog’s owner for strict liability. While defendant Dominguez was detailing the
Here, because she had agreed to care for defen- interior of defendant McNamara’s vehicle, the
dant’s dog, plaintiff was its keeper and thus could vehicle accelerated, struck, and injured plaintiff
not sue for strict liability. The court found no rea- Molleturo. Molleturo brought claims against both
son, however, why plaintiff’s status as the dog’s Dominguez and McNamara; Splash intervened
keeper would prevent her from suing defendant as plaintiff, and brought an action for recovery
for negligence. The court accordingly denied sum- of any amounts it would be obliged to pay ac-
mary judgment as to plaintiff’s negligence claim. cording to the Workers’ Compensation Act. Mc-
Namara counterclaimed against Splash, alleging
Splash had control of the vehicle, that common
law and a contractual agreement required Splash
PERSONAL INJURY • CIVIL PROCEDURE to indemnify and hold the McNamaras harm-

less, negligence, and unjust enrichment. Splash

Absolute Precision on Statutory Notice moved to strike all counterclaims, arguing Mc-
of Date of Loss Not Required Namara failed to establish an independent legal
relationship between Splash and themselves sep-
CASE: Brown v. Comm’r of the Dep’t of Transp. arate from Molleturo and Dominguez. The court
COURT: Ansonia-Milford J.D. at Milford
DOC. NO.: CV-20-6038447 found a trier of fact might conclude the vehicle
was in exclusive control of Splash or its agents,
COURT OPINION BY: Pierson and therefore denied the motion to strike as to
DATE: November 23, 2020 • PAGES: 9 common law breach, but granted as to contrac-
tual breach. The court also granted the motion to
Plaintiff was injured when he fell into a sinkhole strike as to the unjust enrichment count.
on the grassy area of a curb immediately adja-
cent to a state highway, on property maintained
and owned by defendant. Plaintiff ’s complaint
alleged the injury occurred on September 20, PERSONAL INJURY • PREMISES LIABILITY

2018, however, notice to the defendant included Court Denies Summary Judgment in
a scrivener’s error that indicated the injury oc-
curred on September 24, 2018, four days later. Retail Slip-and-Fall, and Grants Summary
Defendant moved to dismiss, alleging the four- Judgment for Lessee Landowner
day discrepancy deprived the court of subject
matter jurisdiction. The court found the dis- CASE: Vaughn v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LTD. P’ship
crepancy did not deprive them of jurisdiction, COURT: J.D. of New London J.D. at New London
reasoning the four-day error did not prevent the DOC. NO.: CV-19-6042518
defendant from gathering information about COURT OPINION BY: Jongbloed
the incident in an intelligent manner. The court DATE: November 24, 2020 • PAGES: 12

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune