Maffucci v. Royal Park Limited Parts., No. Cv92 0506477s (Mar. 2, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Maffucci v. Royal Park Limited Parts., No. Cv92 0506477s (Mar. 2, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1847

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided March 2, 1995·No. No. CV92 0506477S·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On December 16, 1994 this court rendered a decision on a Motion for Summary Judgment. On December 30, 1994 the plaintiff filed a motion to open the judgment and for reargument. The motion to open and reargue was granted by this court.

At the hearing it was the plaintiff's contention that the court failed to take into consideration the Public Utility Commission, regs. 16-11-102. It is the plaintiff's contention that the regulation when read with the Supreme Court decision of Citerella v. United Illuminating W., 158 Conn. 600, 607, requires the defendant to exercise a higher standard of care than the Restatement requires. This court disagrees and finds that regulation 16-11-102 does not bar the analysis applied in this court's original decision.

In reviewing the plaintiff's brief of December 30, 1994 this court finds no questions of material fact raised by the plaintiff. While being sensitive to the role of the trial of fact carved out by our courts, the decision of December 16, 1994 rendered by this court shall remain in effect.

Norko, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On December 16, 1994 this court rendered a decision on a Motion for Summary Judgment. On December 30, 1994 the plaintiff filed a motion to open the judgment and for reargument. The motion to open and reargue was granted by this court.

At the hearing it was the plaintiff's contention that the court failed to take into consideration the Public Utility Commission, regs. 16-11-102. It is the plaintiff's contention that the regulation when read with the Supreme Court decision of Citerella v. United Illuminating W., 158 Conn. 600, 607, requires the defendant to exercise a higher standard of care than the Restatement requires. This court disagrees and finds that regulation 16-11-102 does not bar the analysis applied in this court's original decision.

In reviewing the plaintiff's brief of December 30, 1994 this court finds no questions of material fact raised by the plaintiff. While being sensitive to the role of the trial of fact carved out by our courts, the decision of December 16, 1994 rendered by this court shall remain in effect.

Norko, J.

Maffucci v. Royal Park Limited Parts., No. Cv92 0506477s (Mar. 2, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1847 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1847 (Maffucci v. Royal Park Limited Parts., No. Cv92 0506477s (Mar. 2, 1995)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related