Opinion
No. CV 03-0822303
February 3, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT, METROPOLITAN DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The plaintiff, Wilson Laqueux, brought this suit against Kenneth and Inge Swanson, his neighbors and The Metropolitan District ("MDC").
The plaintiff claimed damages to his property because of water released from a ruptured water supply pipe serving the property of his neighbors which caused water to flow over onto his property. The action is brought in two counts. The first count alleges that the MDC controls the water distribution system and the incident was caused by MDC's negligence and carelessness in the maintenance of the system. The second count is brought against the Swansons alleging negligence and carelessness. MDC filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that as a matter of law the MDC did not owe a duty to the plaintiff to maintain the ruptured water supply line.
MDC filed a memorandum of law with several exhibits including certified copies of the ordinances of MDC which state that a homeowner is responsible for any repairs to water supply pipes on his property. They also filed a record of repairs by Roto-Rooter to the supply pipe on Swanson's property in June of 1999.
The plaintiff failed to file any memorandum or affidavits. However, both parties did appear at the hearing. The plaintiff's counsel remarked that the water meter in the Swanson's house is owned by the MDC as well the water in the supply pipe until it passes through the meter. In the opinion of the Court these remarks are irrelevant since they are unrelated to location and repair of the burst pipe.
Once the moving party has submitted evidence in support of the motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue. Bartha v. Waterbury Housing Wrecking Co., supra, 190 Conn. at 11-12. Farrell v. Farrell, 182 Conn. 34, 38; 438 A.2d 415 (1980); Rusco Industries, Inc. v. Hartford Housing Authority, 168 Conn. 1, 5; 357 A.2d 484 (1975). It is not enough for the opposing party merely to assert the existence of such a disputed issue. "Mere assertions of fact . . . are insufficient to establish the existence of a material fact and, therefore, cannot refute evidence properly presented to the court . . ." Bartha v. Waterbury House Wrecking Co., supra, 190 Conn. at 12. "The movant has the burden of showing the nonexistence of such issues but the evidence thus presented, if otherwise sufficient, is not rebutted by the bald statement that an issue of fact does exist." Kasowitz v. Mutual Constr. Co., 154 Conn. 607, 613; 228 A.2d 149 (1967) (quoting Boyce v. Merchants Fire Ins. Co., 204 F.Sup. 311, 314 (D.Conn. 1962)); Burns v. Hartford Hosp., 192 Conn. 451, 455; 472 A.2d 1257 (1984).
The party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegation or denial but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256; 106 S.Ct, 2505, 2514; 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 217 (1986).
In June 1999 the Swansons were the owners of property at 106 Levesque Avenue, West Hartford which adjoins property of the plaintiff. Also in June of 1999, the Metropolitan District investigated a water leakage problem and visited 106 Levesque Avenue on June 7, 1999 to inspect the premises and as a result of this inspection it was determined that the leak originated in the water supply pipe under the control and ownership of the homeowner and not within the Metropolitan District's right of way.
Under the laws set forth in the MDC and Town of West Hartford ordinances, the MDC is not responsible for maintaining pipes within a customer's property boundaries. Since the maintenance and repair of water supply lines located within private property is the responsibility of the owner of the property, MDC did not owe a duty to the plaintiff and cannot be found to have acted negligently.
Under the facts of this case, there is no genuine issue of fact pertaining to responsibility for repairs to the ruptured pipe, the principal issue in this case, and MDC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Summary Judgment may enter in favor of The Metropolitan District Commission.
BY THE COURT
HALE, JTR