Opinion
No. CV04 008 56 84
December 8, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Procedural History
The defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was first heard by the court on October 2, 2005. The plaintiff was not present and no objection was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The Court granted the Motion on October 4, 2005.
The plaintiff's Motion to Reargue dated October 17, 2005 was granted by the Court on October 19, 2005.
The matter was set down for argument on December 5, 2005. Both attorneys appeared and argued their respective positions on the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court did review all briefs filed in support and opposition to said motion.
Discussion
Plaintiff alleges that on May 12, 2002 at approximately 7:00 P.M. she slipped and fell on the floor at the front entrance of the defendant's restaurant located at 132 Marsh Hill Road, Orange, Connecticut. Plaintiff alleges that the condition of the floor was dangerous.
Defendant moves for summary judgment as the plaintiff has not disclosed an expert to testify as to the condition of said floor. In Santopietro v. City of New Haven, 239 Conn. 207, 682 A.2d 106 (1996) the Connecticut Supreme Court clearly articulated the need for expert testimony in cases involving details beyond the general experience of a layperson.
Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged at oral argument on this motion that he needs an expert to proceed on this claim. Plaintiff has not disclosed an expert. This writ has been pending in court for approximately one and a half years.
Without an expert, the plaintiff cannot meet her burden of proof on the issue of negligence. There is no genuine issue of material fact. The defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Judgment shall enter on behalf of the defendants.