Baptiste v. Better Val-U Supermarket, Inc.
Decision Date | 10 December 2002 |
Docket Number | (SC 16764). |
Citation | 262 Conn. 135,811 A.2d 687 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STERNE BAPTISTE v. BETTER VAL-U SUPERMARKET, INC., ET AL. |
Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js. Michael D. Colonese, with whom, on the brief, was Dana M. Horton, for the appellant (named defendant).
Lorenzo J. Cicchiello, for the appellee (plaintiff).
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly determined that, under the circumstances of this case, the named defendant, Better Val-U Supermarket, Inc. (defendant), owed a duty to the plaintiff, Sterne Baptiste, who, in the course of completing the forms necessary to conduct a monetary wire transfer through facilities owned by Western Union Financial Services, Inc. (Western Union), which were located on the defendant's premises, placed on the defendant's counter an envelope containing $5000 in cash, which disappeared. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant1 alleging negligence for its failure to: (1) provide a safe and secure area for the transaction of monetary wire transfers; (2) monitor adequately the area where monetary transfers took place in order to discourage loss, theft and larceny; (3) use security cameras in the area in which monetary wire transfers took place in order to discourage loss, theft and larceny and to assist in the investigation of loss claims; and (4) train properly its employees in the safe and secure transaction of monetary wire transfers. Following a court trial, the trial court concluded that the area of the defendant's store where the plaintiff had gone to make his transaction was not secure and that it should have been made secure.2 The court also found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, however, less than 50 percent negligent, and rendered judgment awarding him $2500 in damages. The defendant appealed3 from the judgment, claiming that the trial court improperly had determined that: (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to protect against the loss he had sustained; (2) the defendant had breached that duty; (3) the breach of that duty proximately caused the plaintiff's injury; and (4) the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent for the full extent of his loss. We agree with the defendant's first claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.4
The trial court reasonably could have found the following facts. On March 21, 1999, at approximately 10:30 a.m., the plaintiff entered the defendant's store, located at 469 Hamilton Avenue in Norwich, for the purpose of conducting a monetary wire transfer. A Western Union wire transfer facility was located inside the store. The plaintiff had in his possession a bank envelope containing $5000 in United States currency, which he intended to transfer to his wife in Haiti. He had performed such wire transfers at the defendant's store in the past. Accordingly, he went to the counter that serviced Western Union wire transfers and began to fill out the forms necessary to accomplish the transaction. When the pen he had been using ran out of ink, the plaintiff asked one of the defendant's employees for another pen, at which time he placed the envelope containing the money on the counter to his left. None of the defendant's employees watched the plaintiff fill out the paperwork, but instead waited on other customers. After completing the forms to effect the transfer, the plaintiff notified one of the defendant's employees that he had finished. Another employee, called upon to complete the transaction, asked the plaintiff for the money, at which time the plaintiff realized that the envelope containing the money was missing. The police were then notified of the incident.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) LePage v. Horne, 262 Conn. 116, 124, 809 A.2d 505 (2002). Finally, "[i]f a court determines, as a matter of law, that a defendant owes no duty to a plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot recover in negligence from the defendant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gomes v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., supra, 614-15; accord Neal v. Shiels, Inc., 166 Conn. 3, 12, 347 A.2d 102 (1974).
It is undisputed that the plaintiff in this case was a business invitee of the defendant and that, consequently, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Martin v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Cos., 70 Conn. App. 250, 251, 796 A.2d 1277 (2002); Gulycz v. Stop & Shop Cos., 29 Conn. App. 519, 521, 615 A.2d 1087, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 923, 618 A.2d 527 (1992). Typically, (Citations omitted.) Monahan v. Montgomery, 153 Conn. 386, 390, 216 A.2d 824 (1966); accord Meek v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 72 Conn. App. 467, 474, 806 A.2d 546 (2002). In the absence of allegations and proof of any facts that would give rise to an enhanced duty; cf. Furstein v. Hill, 218 Conn. 610, 624, 590 A.2d 939 (1991) ( ); the defendant is held to the duty of protecting its business invitees from known, foreseeable dangers.
On the basis of our review of the record in this case, the plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved that the incident that occurred on March 21, 1999, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dipietro v. Farmington Sports Arena Llc., No. 29175.
...of rules of law. The first set involves so-called premises liability claims, exemplified by cases such as Baptiste v. Better Val-U Supermarket, Inc., 262 Conn. 135, 811 A.2d 687 (2002), and Morin v. Bell Court Condominium Assn., Inc., 223 Conn. 323, 612 A.2d 1197 (1992). “It is undisputed t......
-
Kelly v. Stop and Shop, Inc.
...duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the benefit of its customers. See, e.g., Baptiste v. Better Val-U Supermarket, Inc., 262 Conn. 135, 140, 811 A.2d 687 (2002). Recently, we reiterated the legal standard that this court ordinarily has applied to premises liability ......
-
Dominguez v. United States
...action in negligence are well established: duty; breach of that duty; causation; and actual injury.” Baptiste v. Better Val–U Supermarket, Inc., 262 Conn. 135, 138, 811 A.2d 687 (Conn.2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The existence of a duty is a question of law. Gordo......
-
Bisson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...the defendant owed the plaintiff the duty to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Baptiste v. Better Val-U Supermarket , Inc. , 262 Conn. 135, 140, 811 A.2d 687 (2002) ; Gulycz v. Stop & Shop Cos. , 29 Conn. App. 519, 521, 615 A.2d 1087, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 923, 618 A.2d 52......
-
2003 Connecticut Appellate Review
...343, 568 A.2d 786 (1990). 44 264 Conn. 474, 823 A.2d 1202 (2003). 45 Id. at 483-84. See also Baptiste v. Better Val-U Supermarkets, Inc., 262 Conn. 135, 141 n.6, 811 A.2d 687 (2002) (general concerns in determining question of duty discussed). 46 263 Conn. 424, 433-46, 820 A.2d 258 (2003). ......