Opinion
No. CV 04-0834271-S
November 24, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#120)
The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted for the following reasons:
This case involves a motor vehicle accident which occurred on a public street in Massachusetts when the vehicle in which the Plaintiffs were occupants was making a left turn into the Defendant's parking lot and was struck by a car proceeding in the opposite direction. The Plaintiffs' claims are that the Defendant was negligent in not providing traffic control officers or police to direct the flow of traffic and to ensure that the traffic on the public roadway adjacent to the parking lot of the Defendant was properly and safely directed into the lot. The Defendant claims that the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to give rise to a duty on the part of the Defendant.
The Defendant argues that in order to determine the existence of a duty Massachusetts law should be applied. The Plaintiffs claim that there must be an actual conflict of laws between competing jurisdictions before the court must apply a choice of law analysis. The court agrees that whether a conflict of laws analysis must be undertaken does depend on the existence of a conflict of laws, which in turn rests on the state of the law in each jurisdiction. Where there is no controlling appellate court precedent in Connecticut, the trial court should address the conflict of laws issue to determine which state's law to apply. Dugan v. Mobile Medical Testing Services, Inc., 265 Conn. 791, 798 (2003). Although the decision in Kolodziej v. Durham Agricultural Fair Association, Inc., 96 Conn.App. 791, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 933 (2006) is of assistance to the court in its analysis of the issue of the Defendant's duty to the Plaintiffs, it does not present "controlling precedent" as to the factual scenario presented here since the facts and claims of negligence alleged in the complaint in that case are distinguishable from those alleged here. Thus the court has applied the factors set forth in Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 229 Conn. 359, 372 (1994) (the accident and alleged negligent conduct occurred in Massachusetts and is the place where the relationship between the parties is centered), and finds that Massachusetts law applies.
The existence of a legal duty is a question of law. Davis v. Westwood Group, 420 Mass. 739, 652 N.E.2d 567 (1995). Massachusetts law does not impose a duty on a landowner to provide safe passage on a public highway adjacent to its land or where it has no control over such a public highway. Id. In a later case which relied on Davis, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts noted that the "duty to exercise reasonable care in the use of one's land does not encompass a duty regarding the regulation of traffic on an adjacent State highway or the obligation to make the State highway safer." David v. Urban Retail Properties, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 1106, 796 N.E.2d 896 (2003). Judge Lavine reached a similar result in a case factually very similar to this one (in fact the Defendant claims, and it is not disputed by the Plaintiffs, that the case involved a suit brought by the passengers in the automobile which collided with the Plaintiffs here) and found that the Defendants owed no duty to the Plaintiffs under Massachusetts law. Terjek v. Riverside Park Enterprises et al., Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. CV 04 0834999S (Feb. 3, 2005) ( 38 Conn. L. Rptr. 655).