Tuite v. Hospital of Central Connecticut

Connecticut Appellate Court

Tuite v. Hospital of Central Connecticut

61 A.3d 1187, 141 Conn. App. 573, 2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 151

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 26, 2013

DocketAC 34222

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 61 A.3d 1187 (Tuite v. Hospital of Central Connecticut) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tuite v. Hospital of Central Connecticut, 61 A.3d 1187, 141 Conn. App. 573, 2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 151 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a negligence action brought by the plaintiff Mark Tuite¹ against the defendant, The Hospital of Central Connecticut, concerning an injury the plaintiff purportedly suffered when he allegedly slipped on a drop of oil on the floor of the hospital cafeteria while making a salad at the salad bar. Following a bench trial, the court, Alander, J., rendered judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiffs complaint and subsequently denied his motion for reargument and reconsideration. On appeal, the plaintiff (1) claims that the court incorrectly applied the mode of operation doctrine² and (2) challenges the court’s evidentiary rulings regarding whether the mode of operation of the defendant’s salad bar created a hazard of spilled oil and whether the defendant took reasonable steps to discover and remove any hazards. The [575]*575plaintiff further asserts that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for reargument and reconsideration.

After examining the record and the briefs and considering the arguments of the parties, we are persuaded that the court correctly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. The issues raised by the plaintiff were resolved properly in the trial court’s thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision. See Tuite v. Hospital of Central Connecticut, 52 Conn. Sup. 544, 72 A.3d 466 (2011). We therefore adopt the memorandum of decision as the proper statement of the relevant facts, issues and applicable law. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See, e.g., Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. State Ethics Commission, 304 Conn. 672, 673, 41 A.3d 656 (2012); Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010); Nestico v. Weyman, 140 Conn. App. 499, 500, 59 A.3d 337 (2013); Green v. DeFrank, 132 Conn. App. 331, 332, 33 A.3d 754 (2011).

The plaintiff also challenges the denial of his motion for reargument and reconsideration. Because we conclude that the court properly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for reargument and reconsideration. See, e.g., Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436, 452-53, 897 A.2d 624, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 933, 909 A.2d 963 (2006).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a negligence action brought by the plaintiff Mark Tuite¹ against the defendant, The Hospital of Central Connecticut, concerning an injury the plaintiff purportedly suffered when he allegedly slipped on a drop of oil on the floor of the hospital cafeteria while making a salad at the salad bar. Following a bench trial, the court, Alander, J., rendered judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiffs complaint and subsequently denied his motion for reargument and reconsideration. On appeal, the plaintiff (1) claims that the court incorrectly applied the mode of operation doctrine² and (2) challenges the court’s evidentiary rulings regarding whether the mode of operation of the defendant’s salad bar created a hazard of spilled oil and whether the defendant took reasonable steps to discover and remove any hazards. The [575]*575plaintiff further asserts that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for reargument and reconsideration.

After examining the record and the briefs and considering the arguments of the parties, we are persuaded that the court correctly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. The issues raised by the plaintiff were resolved properly in the trial court’s thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision. See Tuite v. Hospital of Central Connecticut, 52 Conn. Sup. 544, 72 A.3d 466 (2011). We therefore adopt the memorandum of decision as the proper statement of the relevant facts, issues and applicable law. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See, e.g., Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. State Ethics Commission, 304 Conn. 672, 673, 41 A.3d 656 (2012); Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010); Nestico v. Weyman, 140 Conn. App. 499, 500, 59 A.3d 337 (2013); Green v. DeFrank, 132 Conn. App. 331, 332, 33 A.3d 754 (2011).

The plaintiff also challenges the denial of his motion for reargument and reconsideration. Because we conclude that the court properly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for reargument and reconsideration. See, e.g., Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436, 452-53, 897 A.2d 624, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 933, 909 A.2d 963 (2006).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.3d 1187, 141 Conn. App. 573, 2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuite-v-hospital-of-central-connecticut-connappct-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack