Liguore v. Rainey, No. 35 59 00 (Oct. 24, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10585
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedOctober 24, 1997
DocketNo. 35 59 00
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10585 (Liguore v. Rainey, No. 35 59 00 (Oct. 24, 1997)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Liguore v. Rainey, No. 35 59 00 (Oct. 24, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10585 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This matter was commenced by the plaintiff, Maria Liguore, CT Page 10586 with a two-count complaint dated December 15, 1993. The defendant, Brigitte Rainey, filed her answer dated February 23, 1994 on February 25, 1994. The plaintiff's first count of the complaint is brought in negligence and the second count in reckless and/or intentional tort.

The plaintiff testified that on December 17, 1991 she arrived home from work around A.M. She lived on the first floor of a two-family home she owned at 25 Wilcox Avenue, Meriden, Connecticut. The defendant lived on the second floor with a Claire Evans. The plaintiff testified that about 4:00 A.M. on December 17, 1991, she heard someone knocking on her front door and the defendant's front door. Both doors were side by side in the front of said house. The plaintiff informed the gentleman who was doing the knocking that if he did not stop she would call the police. The gentleman told the plaintiff that Claire called him. She testified she did not know the man and would not open the defendant's door as he requested. When the knocking continued the plaintiff called the Meriden Police. They arrived about 4:30 A.M. but the gentleman who was knocking on the door had already left the area. The plaintiff did not speak to the police officer but she saw him at her house. She stated she fell asleep about 6:00 A.M. that day. She then testified that between 8:30 and 9:30 A.M. someone was ringing her doorbell. She testified she went out her side door and around to the front of the house to see who was ringing her door bell. She saw the defendant and Claire Evans. She testified they started yelling at her. The plaintiff testified that after the yelling ceased Claire Evans had left to go to school. The plaintiff stated she was one foot from the door and facing it while she was trying to explain to the defendant why she called the police. She testified the defendant said "I'm moving out." The plaintiff testified that the defendant then went inside her own front door and slammed it, punching her fist through a pane of glass in said door. When the defendant did this, the pane of glass shattered and pieces of glass hit the plaintiff's face, according to her. The plaintiff stated that the front door was wooden with a large glass pane at the top of it and two smaller glass panes below the larger glass pane. The plaintiff testified it was one of the smaller panes the defendant punched. She also testified that the broken glass pane was above her eye level as she stood outside of the door looking at it. The plaintiff stated when the glass hit her face she felt something dripping and jell was coming out of her eye. The plaintiff said the defendant ran up the stairs to her apartment after the incident and that she (plaintiff) went in to her house to wash her eye. CT Page 10587 The plaintiff stated after she washed her eye she called a friend, Carol Riccio, who in turn called Cathy Vogel who lived near the plaintiff. Both women went to the plaintiffs house and took her to the emergency room at the Meriden Hospital.

The Meriden Hospital sent the plaintiff to Veterans Memorial Hospital by ambulance. At the latter hospital Doctor Marvin Gottlieb treated the plaintiff. He told her that if there was glass in her eye he would have to remove the eye. The plaintiff was operated on by Doctor Gottlieb for a repair of a corneascleral laceration in her left eye. She remained hospitalized overnight and was discharged the next day, on December 18, 1991. (Exhibit D4.) The plaintiff testified she saw Doctor Gottlieb weekly for her eye problem. She stated when she quickly developed a cataract after this incident she was referred to Doctor Peter Gloor of the Yale University School of Medicine by Doctor Gottlieb. She was seen by Doctor Gloor on February 11, 1992 (Exhibit A-28). He stated his impression was that Ms. Liguore's vision was limited by a cataract in the left; eye.

On March 4, 1992 the plaintiff had an operation performed by Doctor Marvin Gottlieb on he left eye at the Veterans Memorial Hospital in Meriden. This operation was an extracapsular cataract extraction performed in the left eye with insertion of a posterior chamber lens and revision of the corneal laceration with additional sutures placed and previous sutures removed. (Exhibit C-1). The plaintiff was discharged from the hospital on the same day as the operation.

The plaintiff testified that since this incident she has developed glaucoma in her left eye. She stated that Doctor Gottlieb referred her to Doctor Liggett of the Yale School of Medicine for this glaucoma problem. During this trial the plaintiff did not prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that she suffers from glaucoma because of this incident.

After the cataract operation on March 4, 1992 in her left eye the plaintiff's vision in that eye improved to 20/40 (Exhibit A43). However, over the next five years her vision in her left eye declined to 20/400 vision (Exhibit A45). Doctor Mark S. Milner to whom the plaintiff was referred for consultation by Doctor Gottlieb could not explain the reason for the decline in vision. (Exhibit A45).

The plaintiff stated that prior to this incident she did not CT Page 10588 need glasses and that her last eye exam was when she was eighteen or nineteen years of age. She is now fifty years of age. She stated that her eyesight was good prior to this incident. She testified that today with her left eye she can only identify objects a little bit without glasses. She stated with glasses her left eye sight is very blurry when only using the left eye. Now she always wears glasses and for most of the time in addition thereto she wears dark glasses over her regular glasses because light bothers both her eyes since this incident. She testified that at work she wears both pairs of glasses as aforesaid plus she uses a magnifying glass.

The plaintiff testified that she started working at the US Surgical Company three months prior to this incident. She was earning approximately $260.00 net pay per week prior to her injury. She stated she was out of work five months due to her eye injury. She testified that during that time she collected $100.00 per week from a medical insurance policy. She returned to work full time after five months and has worked full time ever since. Her job prior and subsequent to her injury was assembling sutures for hospitals and doctors.

The defendant Brigitte Rainey also testified in this matter. She stated that she lived on the second floor of the plaintiff's house with Claire Evans. On December 16, 1991 she stated she went to bed about 10:00 P.M. and slept through the night. She stated she woke up about 7:00 A.M. on December 17, 1991 and saw a vehicle belonging to Lester John outside in the street. She became concerned because Mr. John was not around. She testified she grew up with Lester John and that he was a friend and also the father of Claire Evans' child. The defendant testified that she did not hear anyone knocking on her door during the night. She stated she saw the plaintiff between 8:30 A.M. and 9:30 A.M. that morning when Claire Evans was ringing the plaintiff's doorbell and she (plaintiff) came out to see why. The defendant stated that Ms. Evans and the plaintiff got into a verbal dispute about Ms. Evans' boyfriend. She said the plaintiff and Ms. Evans were shouting at each other for a short period of time. She further testified that all three of them were in close proximity to each other.

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

Related

§ 52-225a
Connecticut § 52-225a

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liguore-v-rainey-no-35-59-00-oct-24-1997-connsuperct-1997.