Frolich v. McDermott, No. Cv91 0115908s (Jun. 29, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Frolich v. McDermott, No. Cv91 0115908s (Jun. 29, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6239

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided June 29, 1992·No. No. CV91 0115908S·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The plaintiff brought the present action to recover damages for personal injuries when a vehicle stopped on a highway due to highway construction and was struck in the rear by the defendant's vehicle. The plaintiffs filed an affidavit setting forth the above facts and also has filed a copy of the police report in which it is indicated that the defendant stated that he attempted to slow his vehicle for traffic ahead but was unable to do so due to a brake malfunction. The complaint does not allege a specific violation of General Statutes 14-80h which might give rise to a claim of negligence per se under the rule of such cases as Turner v. Scanlon, 146 Conn. 149, 157 (1959).

The attorney for the defendant has filed an affidavit indicating that the defendant has recently suffered a stroke and was unable to effectively complete an affidavit due to his inability to recall the events in, question. Accordingly, the brief filed on behalf of the defendant states that the defendant is "currently" unable to fully assist in the defense of this matter. There is no indications as to whether the condition of the defendant is permanent or temporary or whether he will be able to assist in the defense of the case at a future date. CT Page 6240

Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, without prejudice, to refile the Motion at a later date.

RUSH, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The plaintiff brought the present action to recover damages for personal injuries when a vehicle stopped on a highway due to highway construction and was struck in the rear by the defendant's vehicle. The plaintiffs filed an affidavit setting forth the above facts and also has filed a copy of the police report in which it is indicated that the defendant stated that he attempted to slow his vehicle for traffic ahead but was unable to do so due to a brake malfunction. The complaint does not allege a specific violation of General Statutes 14-80h which might give rise to a claim of negligence per se under the rule of such cases as Turner v. Scanlon, 146 Conn. 149, 157 (1959).

The attorney for the defendant has filed an affidavit indicating that the defendant has recently suffered a stroke and was unable to effectively complete an affidavit due to his inability to recall the events in, question. Accordingly, the brief filed on behalf of the defendant states that the defendant is "currently" unable to fully assist in the defense of this matter. There is no indications as to whether the condition of the defendant is permanent or temporary or whether he will be able to assist in the defense of the case at a future date. CT Page 6240

Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, without prejudice, to refile the Motion at a later date.

RUSH, J.

Frolich v. McDermott, No. Cv91 0115908s (Jun. 29, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6239 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 6239 (Frolich v. McDermott, No. Cv91 0115908s (Jun. 29, 1992)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related