2006 Ct. Sup. 5940
No. NNH CV 04 0490946Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven
March 28, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
PATTY JENKINS PITTMAN, JUDGE.
The plaintiff Amanda Coburn brings this action against the defendant Rachel Edwards for compensation for personal injuries as a result of a fall on defendant’s property. For reasons stated herein, the court finds for the defendant and against the plaintiff.
THE PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
On February 14, 2004, the plaintiff and a friend went to visit the plaintiff’s sister. In the late afternoon, they arrived at the three-family residence, owned by the defendant, in which the plaintiff’s sister rented an apartment. The plaintiff and her friend observed accumulations of ice and snow on the sidewalk, on the steps, and on the outside front landing of the building. It was not raining or snowing at the time of the visit. It had last snowed two days before.
After visiting inside for an hour or two, the two left, with the plaintiff preceding her friend out the front door. Upon first stepping onto the outside landing, the plaintiff’s left foot stepped down on an accumulation of frozen material and slid out from under her, causing her to fall down. The plaintiff got up and continued walking to the car with her friend. The plaintiff did not feel any pain in her ankle at that time or throughout that evening. The next morning she felt pain in her left ankle.
Despite pleas from her daughter and her friend that she see a doctor, the plaintiff declined to do so for over month. She finally went to a primary care clinic a month after the fall and was referred to an orthopedist. The orthopedist conducted an examination and referred the plaintiff for a course of physical therapy. The plaintiff did not follow though on physical therapy and did not return to the orthopedist or seek any other treatment CT Page 5941 for her complaint of ankle pain.
The plaintiff claims that her left ankle hurts nearly all the time now. The plaintiff admits having been involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2001 in which she injured her neck and back, but she denies ever having had any problem with her left ankle prior to the February 2004 fall.
THE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE
The defendant admits owning and controlling the three-family house where the plaintiff was a visitor in February 2004. The defendant’s husband David Edwards performed all necessary maintenance on the property. On February 14, 2004, David Edwards was present at the property in the morning to meet an appraiser who was to do an evaluation of the property for a refinance that was to take place that month. Edwards looked to make sure the property was presentable. He observed that the walkways, including the landing, were cleared of ice and snow. The landing was partly covered by a roof. It was not raining or snowing at the time Edwards was there.
EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE
The credible evidence is that on February 14, 2004, the plaintiff fell on property owned and controlled by the defendant. One of several contested issues in the case is whether the fall caused an injury to the plaintiff.
Among the documents submitted as exhibits in this trial are records from an April 2001 primary care evaluation, occurring within days of the plaintiff’s car accident of that year. The records show that the plaintiff’s primary complaint on her presentation at MidState Medical Center three days after that accident was left ankle pain. In fact, her left ankle was x-rayed at that time. The radiology report states: “examination [of the left ankle] shows soft tissue swelling. There is irregularity and spurring of the medial malleolus which is suggestive of old injury . . .” This evidence leads the court to conclude that, despite the plaintiff’s denials, the plaintiff’s ankle pain and impairment was a long-standing problem that she had endured since the 2001 accident and from an injury even prior to that. Her denial of this fact implicates the credibility of her remaining testimony. CT Page 5942 The court finds that the plaintiff has failed to carry her burden of proving she suffered any actual injury as a result of the February 2004 fall. Since proof of actual injury is an essential element in her cause of action, Right v. Breen, 277 Conn. 364, 377 (2006), there is no need for the court to address the other elements of the plaintiff’s case.
The court finds for the defendant, and judgment shall enter accordingly. CT Page 5943