 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Prescott v. City of Meriden12/30/2003
The plaintiff Stephen Prescott appeals from the trial court's judgment granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment in this personal injury action in which the plaintiff sustained an injury while attending a high school football game. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that he did not qualify for the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the doctrine of governmental immunity. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to the resolution of the plaintiff's appeal. On November 26, 1998, the plaintiff attended a high school football game at Platt High School's field in Meriden to watch his son play. Rain was falling that morning, and the weather forecast predicted the same for the time of the game. When the plaintiff arrived at the public field, the bleacher seats, which were temporarily erected, already were "wet and muddy" from the rain and from the other spectators walking on them. Prior to the end of the game, as the plaintiff was descending the bleachers from his seat, he fell, injuring himself.
On November 24, 2000, the plaintiff filed a complaint, claiming negligence on the part of the defendants. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants (1) allowed the bleachers to be used during heavy rain, (2) did not postpone the game due to the heavy rain, (3) allowed the bleachers to be used in the rain without a nonskid surface or stairs, (4) did not provide bleachers with handrails and (5) did not inspect the bleachers.
On December 27, 2000, the defendants filed an answer and special defense in which they claimed that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. On November 2, 2001, the defendants amended their answer and special defense, adding the doctrine of governmental immunity as a special defense.
The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment on June 18, 2002, claiming that all counts of the plaintiff's complaint were barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity. On July 5, 2002, in his objection to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that the identifiable personimminent harm exception to governmental immunity applied. On September 25, 2002, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff was not an identifiable person, but rather a member of the general public attending the football game. The plaintiff appeals from that judgment.
We begin our analysis by setting forth the applicable standard of review. "Practice Book § 384 [now § 1749] provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Tryon v. North Branford, 58 Conn. App. 702, 706, 755 A.2d 317 (2000).
"On appeal, e must decide whether the trial court erred in determining that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . Because the trial court rendered judgment for the defendants as a matter of law, our review is plenary and we must decide whether [the trial court's] conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record. . . . On appeal, however, the burden is on the opposing party to demonstrate that the trial court's decision to gran
Page 1 2 3 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|