Opinion
No. CV04-5000220S
October 24, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In her amended complaint dated December 10, 2004, plaintiff alleges that she was injured in a fall at the defendant church on August 31, 2002. Plaintiff attended a wedding at the church that day. She fell down the front steps of the church while leaving after the ceremony. More specifically, she alleges that "she was caused to trip and fall due to the congested nature of the stairway" (¶ 2). Plaintiff alleges that she fell because the church was negligent in allowing too many people to use the stairway at the same time and failed to post warning signs telling people that they ran a risk of falling on the steps if there were too many people on them at the same time (¶ 3). Plaintiff alleges no physical or design defect in the steps, nor does she allege that the defendant had committed contractually to handle safety or security at the event.
Defendant moves for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) plaintiff has neither alleged nor proven that the defendant owed her a duty of care with respect to the steps; and (2) the defendant was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's alleged injuries.
Because the court agrees that the defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty to do any of the things plaintiff alleges it failed to do, its conclusion on that issue is dispositive. Defendant's second argument is not discussed in this decision.
Plaintiff does not allege what her status was at the time she was injured. The defendant claims that she was a licensee. Under Connecticut law, a person who enters a church in order to attend a religious service is a licensee. Coolbaugh v. St. Peters Roman Catholic Church, 142 Conn. 536 (1955); see also McNulty v. Hurley, 97 So.2d 185 (1957). A possessor of land is not liable to a licensee for an injury caused by an open and obvious condition of the premises; in other words, the licensee takes the premises as he or she finds them. Morin v. Bell Court Condominium Assn., 223 Conn. 323, 327 (1992). Even if plaintiff was an invitee at the time she fell, that would not impose on the defendant a duty to do what plaintiff claims it should have done on her behalf. While a property owner has a greater duty to warn invitees than the duty it owes to licensees, that duty to warn extends only to dangers which the invitee could not reasonably be expected to discover. Warren v. Stancliffe, 157 Conn. 216, 218 CT Page 13351-hp (1968). A reasonable person who found herself on or about to step onto the stairs in question should certainly have understood that the presence of many other people on the stairs at the same time made being on the stairs more dangerous than it would otherwise be. Under these circumstances, this court will not impose a duty on the defendant to have warned the plaintiff of a danger which she knew or should have known existed.
The situation is analogous to that facing Judge Alvord in Carter v. Laidlaw Transit, 2004 Conn.Super. LEXIS 1355 (J.D. of Waterbury, 2004) ( 37 Conn. L. Rptr. 82), in which the court held that a bus driver does not have the duty to keep the stairs of a bus free of water on a rainy day. This is particularly significant since a common carrier such as a bus company owes its passengers an extremely high degree of care, much higher than a property owner owes to its invitees.
The question of whether a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty is a question of law which can be resolved on summary judgment. Petriello v. Kalman, 215 Conn. 377, 382 (1990). Defendant has demonstrated that there is no material issue of fact here and that it is entitled to summary judgment.
The motion for summary judgment is therefore granted. It is so ordered.