PREMISES LIABILITY: Superior Court grants Motion to Strike in premises liability case, holding that duty of possessor does not protect people of “frail stature, advanced years, diminished health, and those with other limitations”

The court granted defendant’s Motion to Strike the Second Count as failing to state a legally cognizable cause of action sounding in negligence.  The plaintiff attempted to bring a two-count complaint sounding in premises liability and negligence.  The plaintiff claimed that negligence count set forth a separate and distinct cause of action based on the defendant’s alleged duty to “maintain the premises to as to protect those of ‘frail stature, advanced years, diminished health, and those with other limitations.’”  The court held that such a cause of action was legally insufficient as “the law does not impose a duty on possessors of real property to maintain their premises in a manner designed to protect people of ‘frail stature, advanced years, diminished heath, and those with other limitations.’  Instead the law requires a possessor of real property to maintain the premises in ‘reasonably safe’ condition for all invitees.”  Hilliary Horrocks v. 385 Union Square Realty, LLC, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. CV20-6053951-S (Oct. 8, 2020)