2008 Ct. Sup. 11056
No. CV-07-5002691Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New London at New London
July 8, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS MOISES PARIONA AND FREDY PARIONA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#114)
JAMES W. ABRAMS, Judge.
This matter involves a series of rear end collisions involving four motor vehicles. There does not appear to be any issue regarding the fact that defendant Ann Seibel rear-ended a stopped vehicle, causing that vehicle to strike plaintiff’s vehicle. Subsequent to that series of impacts, a fourth vehicle, operated by defendant Moises Pariona and owned by defendant Fredy Pariona, rear-ended Ms. Seibel’s vehicle. The Parionas seek summary judgment in this matter based on their assertion that no genuine issue exists regarding the fact that while their vehicle did strike the rear of Ms. Seibel’s vehicle, that impact did not cause her vehicle to again strike the vehicles in front of her and, as a result, they are not liable for plaintiff’s injuries.
“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.” Connecticut Medical Insurance Co. v. Kulikowski, 286 Conn. 1, 4-5 (2008). “To satisfy his burden the movant must make a showing that it is quite clear what the truth is, and that excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact.” Amendola v. Geremia, 21 Conn.App. 35, 37 (1990), appeal denied, 215 Conn. 803 (1990).
Counsel for Ann Seibel filed an Objection to the Motion for Summary Judgment dated May 22, 2008 in spite of the fact that she withdrew her apportionment complaint against the Parionas on April 8, 2008. However, the Parionas remain in the case by virtue of plaintiff’s cross complaint against them. At the May 27, 2008 oral argument on this Motion, counsel for the Parionas argued without reference to authority that the Court CT Page 11057 should not consider the arguments raised in the Seibel memorandum as she no longer had standing to oppose the motion. The Court rejects this argument as Seibel remains a proper party to the case.
Both parties’ memoranda feature snippets of deposition testimony from the various participants in the accident. The cumulative effect of a review of this testimony reveals a textbook example of the “Roshomon effect”[1] s as each person has a different recollection of the accident, including, in certain instances, whether there was a second impact with plaintiff’s vehicle as a result of the impact of the Pariona vehicle and whether the first three vehicles were still in contact when the Pariona vehicle struck the Seibel vehicle.
As a result of the foregoing, the Court finds the existence of genuine issues of material fact and defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby denied.
CT Page 11058