Opinion
No. CV10-6005664 S
September 9, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This cause of action arises out of a claim by the plaintiff, Harry Overend, that he was seriously injured when he slipped on an accumulation of ice and snow while exiting his vehicle. At the time, the vehicle was parked on property owned by the defendant, 445 Grant St., LLC, (445 Grant). At the time he was injured, the plaintiff was an employee of a company known as the APT Foundation, Inc. (APT). APT was a tenant occupying a building across the street from 445 Grant, owned by the defendant, 425 Grant St. LLC, (425 Grant).
445 Grant has filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that APT is liable for any damages incurred by the plaintiff as they claim APT was solely responsible for snow removal in the area where the plaintiff fell. The motion is based on the submission of two items. The first is the lease between APT and 425 Grant. The lease delineates the leased property as the entire stand alone building located at 425 Grant St. Under the lease APT was required to provide maintenance for the building and adjacent sidewalks.
The only reference to 445 Grant is a paragraph in the lease which simply states that 425 Grant is providing 15 parking spaces in the rear of the "Murphy building at 445 Grant St." The property is located across the street. There is no reference to 445 Grant included as a leased premises nor is there any reference to any maintenance requirement on the part of APT with respect to 445 Grant. We have not been furnished any information concerning the basis of the authority of 425 Grant to appropriate a portion of 445 Grant, property it does not own, for use by its tenant and whether or not there were any terms, conditions or agreements between 425 Grant and 445 Grant.
In addition, the defendants submitted an affidavit from APT's chief operating officer, Caroline McRae, claiming that APT was exclusively in control and possession of the area where the plaintiff felt pursuant to the lease between APT and 425 Grant "the owner of the premises." That conclusion is not to be made by Ms. McRae, but by the court or the trier of fact. 425 Grant is not the owner of the premises and the lease does not provide exclusive possession and control to APT for the 15 parking spaces nor is there any specific reference in the lease requiring APT to provide maintenance for private property not included in their lease.
445 Grant did not submit any affidavits or exhibits. We do not know if there were any arrangements, agreements or contracts between APT and 445 Grant concerning the maintenance of a portion of their property. We have no statement from 445 Grant that they relinquished possession and control of the property. As APT was neither a tenant or contractor with any relationship to 445 Grant, we simply have the owner of property allowing a stranger to shovel snow from 15 parking spaces on their property which does not absolve their responsibility for injuries incurred by an invitee.
"It is in fact true that a party in possession and control of the premises has a non-delegable duty to persons injured on those premises, the possessor is ordinarily the party responsible for the reason that the person in possession is in a position of control and is best able to prevent harm. Connecticut Law of the Torts, Wright, Fitzgerald, Ackerman Sec. 46, page 108; See also Mark v. Clinch, 166 Connecticut 295, 296 (1974)" Lanzi v. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, No. CV 95-0050551S (September 10, 1999 Carradino, J.). The motion for summary judgment is denied.