Opinion
14-P-1878
12-10-2015
DOROTHY STEWART v. FIVE BRIDGE INN, LLC.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
A judge of the Superior Court ordered the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Five Bridge Inn, LLC (Five Bridge Inn), in a negligence suit brought by the plaintiff, Dorothy Stewart. Stewart appeals from the judgment dismissing her complaint. We affirm.
Background. On September 4, 2011, Stewart attended a wedding at Five Bridge Inn. She was wearing three-inch wedge heels. While getting out of her motor vehicle and walking toward the venue, Stewart was in conversation with her husband and enjoying the scenery. After walking about ten to fifteen feet, Stewart fell, fracturing her tibia and fibula. She was transported to a hospital and underwent surgery.
On August 23, 2012, Stewart filed a complaint in the Superior Court alleging that Five Bridge Inn negligently controlled its premises so as to cause her to suffer personal injuries. At her deposition, Stewart opined that her fall was caused by an irregularly-sized rock embedded in the gravel parking lot, but admitted she did not actually know how or why she fell. She also admitted she did not know whether the rock she had identified played any role in her fall, but she assumed it had. Five Bridge Inn moved for summary judgment on the ground that Stewart had failed to establish that her fall was caused by a defective condition on its property.
Discussion. "We review a grant of summary judgment de novo to determine 'whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" Juliano v. Simpson, 461 Mass. 527, 529-530 (2012), quoting from Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120 (1991). See Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 (2002).
"To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, that the defendant breached this duty, that damage resulted, and that there was a causal relation between the breach of the duty and the damage." Jupin v. Kask, 447 Mass. 141, 146 (2006). "Causation is an essential element of that proof." Glidden v. Maglio, 430 Mass. 694, 696 (2000).
Here, Stewart is unable to show a causal relationship between her injury and the alleged negligence. Having no firm knowledge of the cause of her fall, she cannot establish causation beyond mere speculation or conjecture. See Borden v. Gibson Assocs., Inc., 31 Mass. App. Ct. 51, 55 (1991), citing Landon v. First Natl. Stores, Inc., 353 Mass. 756, 757 (1967). The entry of summary judgment was proper.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Agnes, Sullivan & Blake, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: December 10, 2015.