Argued
March 13, 2019
Procedural
History
Action
to recover damages for, inter alia, the defendant's
alleged negligence, and for other relief, brought to the
Superior Court in the judicial district of New London, where
the court, Cole-Chu, J., granted the defendant's motion
for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from
which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
James
V. Sabatini, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Gary
Kaisen, for the appellee (defendant).
DiPentima, C. J., and Alvord and Conway, Js.
OPINION
CONWAY, J.
The
plaintiff, Megan Marvin, through her mother and next friend,
Carole Marvin, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by
the trial court in favor of the defendant, the Board of
Education of the Town of Colchester, on the basis of
governmental immunity. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that
the court improperly rendered summary judgment because there
remains a genuine issue of material fact with respect to (1)
whether the defendant's inspection and maintenance of a
locker room floor constitutes a ministerial duty for the
purpose of governmental immunity, and (2) whether the
plaintiff was an identifiable person subject to imminent
harm, thus invoking the identifiable person, imminent harm
exception to governmental immunity. We disagree and,
accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The
record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, reveals the following facts and procedural history.
The plaintiff was a student at Bacon Academy (school), the
town of Colchester's public high school, where she played
on the school's varsity softball team. On the evening of
May 7, 2013, upon returning to the school from an away
softball game, the plaintiff slipped and fell on a puddle of
water in the women's locker room, causing her to sustain
injuries to her left knee.
On
April 29, 2015, the plaintiff commenced the present action
against the defendant. The complaint alleged, inter alia,
[1] one
count of negligence against the defendant pursuant to General
Statutes § 52-557n (a) (1) (A).[2] The crux of the
plaintiff's negligence claim was that the defendant,
through its agents, failed to adequately maintain and inspect
the locker room floor and failed to warn the plaintiff of the
unsafe condition.
The
defendant filed an answer to the complaint on September 1,
2015, denying the negligence allegation and asserting as a
special defense that the plaintiff's negligence claim was
barred on the basis of governmental immunity pursuant to
§ 52-557n (a) (2) (B).[3]
On
January 25, 2017, the defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment on the ground that the plaintiff's claim was
barred by governmental immunity. In her objection to the
motion, the plaintiff argued that there remained a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether the inspection and
maintenance of the locker room floor constituted a
ministerial duty for the purpose of governmental immunity or,
in the alternative, whether the plaintiff was an identifiable
victim within the purview of the identifiable person,
imminent harm exception to governmental immunity.
In its
memorandum of decision, the court concluded that the
defendant had met its burden of establishing that no genuine
issue of material fact existed as to both grounds argued by
the plaintiff, and, accordingly, it granted the
defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis of
governmental immunity. This appeal followed. Additional facts
will be set forth as necessary.
We
begin our analysis by setting forth the standard of review
applicable to an appeal from a trial court's ruling on a
motion for summary judgment. ‘‘Practice Book
§ [17-49] provides that summary judgment shall be
rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other
proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. . . . In deciding a motion for
summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . . The
party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the
absence of any genuine issue [of] material facts which, under
applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a
judgment as a matter of law . . . .'' (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) DeMiceli v.Cheshire, 162 Conn.App. 216, 221-22, 131 A.3d 771
(2016). ‘‘Once the moving party has met its
burden [of production] . . . the opposing party must present
evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed
factual issue. . . . [I]t [is] incumbent [on] the party
opposing summary judgment to establish a factual predicate
from which it can be determined, as a matter of law, that a
genuine issue of material fact exists. . . . The presence . .
. of an alleged adverse claim is not sufficient to defeat a
motion for summary judgment. . . . Our review of the decision
to grant a motion ...