Oxford Automotive, LLC v. Kryzwick

Full title: Oxford Automotive, LLC v. Paul Kryzwick

Court: Superior Court of Connecticut

Date published: Apr 27, 2017

AANCV146016889S (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 27, 2017)

Opinion

AANCV146016889S

04-27-2017

Oxford Automotive, LLC v. Paul Kryzwick

Denise D. Markle, J.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Filed April 28, 2017

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Denise D. Markle, J.

In this motion the plaintiff seeks the court to enter a summary judgment in its favor in regards to the defendant's special defenses of qualified immunity claiming the driving of the municipal snow plow constituted a ministerial act and hence the act is not entitled to governmental immunity.

" In seeking summary judgment, it is the movant who has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any issue of fact. The courts are in entire agreement that the moving party for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all the material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitled him to a judgment as a matter of law. The courts hold the movant to a strict standard. 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 . . . As the burden of proof is on the movant, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent . . . When documents submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment fail to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party has no obligation to submit documents establishing the existence of such an issue . . . Once the moving party has met its burden, however, the opposing party must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. Of America, 310 Conn. 304, 319-20, 77 A.3d 726 (2013).

In this case the court has reviewed the plaintiff's motion and attached exhibits as well as relevant subsequent pleadings, has considered oral argument of the parties and concludes that the plaintiff has failed to meet its burden, and there remains an issue of material fact as to whether the operation of the snow plow was in fact ministerial or discretionary.

Wherefore the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.