Premises Liability: Court denies defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff’s inconsistent deposition testimony creates an issue of fact for the jury to decide

The Plaintiff’s Allegations Against the Defendants

The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment in an action brought by the plaintiff after she allegedly tripped and fell on the subject premises. The plaintiff claims that the defendants, who owned, possessed, and controlled the premises, knew that the exterior staircase steps leading to the basement had irregular dimensions and railings that were too high.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

In a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the burden of showing the non-existence of any issue of fact. The defendants argue that the plaintiff cannot identify the specific condition which caused her to fall and thus cannot prove the element of notice required in a premises liability cause of action. In support of this argument, the defendants cite the plaintiff’s complaint, specific portions of her deposition testimony, and a narrative portion of what is purported to be an ambulance dispatch call log.

In the cited portions of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, the plaintiff admitted that the handrail did not contribute to her fall because both of her hands were carrying a laundry basket. The plaintiff did, however, identify that her foot landed on a “crack or something” which caused her foot to twist on the “bottom step” or that she was “going down the steps, at the bottom … my foot twisted, and then my other foot coming off the step landed on top of it.” Later in the deposition, the plaintiff testified that the stairs were unsafe, “old and uneven and not well kept.”

The defendants argue that the plaintiff fails to identify in her deposition exactly what caused her to fall and that she has not provided any evidence of a specific defect of which the defendants had notice. The court provides, however, that the defendants’ argument misses the mark because inconsistencies in a party’s deposition testimony typically do not warrant the rendering of summary judgment for the opposing party. Instead, the usual remedy for inconsistent statements by a witness is for the adversary to point them out for purposes of impeaching the witness’ credibility before the trier of fact.

The defendant further argues that without expert opinion and/or evidence of any building code violation, the plaintiff has further failed to provide evidence of a specific defect. However, this argument also misses the mark, and the Appellate Court has provided that the standard of care in a premises liability action is defined generally by law as the duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and therefore, expert testimony is not required to establish it. The duty is instead bounded by the traditional requirement that a defendant must have actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its premises before being required to remedy it.

Court’s Ruling on Summary Judgment

In a motion for summary judgment, however, the court’s function is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist. In this case, the court finds that there is proof in an admissible form, namely, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, that supports the allegations that the condition of the subject staircase was defective, and that the defendant had actual notice of the alleged defect. Whether or not the defendants will ultimately be found liable at trial is an issue of fact for the jury to decide.

The court therefore denies the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
Jensen v. Crook, No. UWY-CV-23-6069724-S, 2024 WL 4750801 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 8, 2024)