Brown v. Housing Authority of City of New Haven
Decision Date | 05 February 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 8816,8816 |
Citation | 583 A.2d 643,23 Conn.App. 624 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Jimmy Lee BROWN v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF NEW HAVEN. |
Terence S. Hawkins, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
James J. Giulietti, with whom, on the brief, was Louis M. Federici, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).
Before NORCOTT, LAVERY and LANDAU, JJ.
The plaintiff appeals from the decision of the trial court granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment. He claims that the trial court improperly (1) denied his request for production of material in the defendant's personnel files, and (2) granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are relevant to the resolution of this case. On June 22, 1984, the plaintiff and Sam Jones, a maintenance mechanic employed by the defendant, were involved in an altercation on Park Street in downtown New Haven. The incident began when the plaintiff asked Jones, who was driving a van owned by the defendant to a job site, to move his vehicle, which was blocking traffic. The two men exchanged words. When Jones refused to move the van, the plaintiff drove around it. Jones followed the plaintiff down Park Street in the van, rear-ending the plaintiff's car several times. The plaintiff stopped his car at the corner of Park Street and Edgewood Avenue and got out to speak with Jones. Jones also exited his vehicle, grabbed a hammer, chased the plaintiff around the car and struck him on the chest with the hammer. As a result of this attack, the plaintiff, who has a pacemaker, suffered a ruptured blood vessel and was hospitalized for several months.
The plaintiff brought the present action under the theory of respondeat superior seeking damages for the assault and battery committed by the defendant's employee. 1 The trial court, J. Flanagan, J. granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no support for the suggestion that Jones was doing anything in furtherance of the defendant's business when he assaulted the plaintiff.
The plaintiff first challenges the trial court's denial of his request for production. On June 14, 1989, the plaintiff filed the following request:
The defendant, in its objection to the plaintiff's request for production, agreed to supply only a manual detailing Jones' job duties. The defendant claimed that the remainder of the plaintiff's requests were both overbroad and irrelevant to the issues remaining in the plaintiff's action. The trial court, Cretella, J., sustained the defendant's objections on November 13, 1989.
"The granting or denial of a discovery request rests in the sound discretion of the court." Standard Tallow Corporation v. Jowdy, 190 Conn. 48, 57, 459 A.2d 503 (1983); Kiessling v. Kiessling, 134 Conn. 564, 568, 59 A.2d 532 (1948). That discretion applies to "decisions concerning whether the information is material, privileged, substantially more available to the
disclosing party, or within the disclosing party's knowledge, possession or power...." Standard Tallow Corporation v. Jowdy, supra, 190 Conn. at 59-60, 459 A.2d 503.
The trial court in the present case did not abuse its discretion when it denied the plaintiff's request for production. The plaintiff had withdrawn the third count of his complaint, in which he had alleged negligence by the defendant in its recruitment, hiring, training, discipline and supervision of Jones, almost two years before filing his request for production. The only issue remaining in the case, therefore, was whether Jones was acting within the scope of his employment when he assaulted the plaintiff. With the exception of the plaintiff's request for materials describing Jones' job duties, which the defendant agreed to provide, none of the plaintiff's requests were directed to the discovery of material relevant to this sole remaining issue. Therefore, the trial court properly sustained the defendant's objections to the plaintiff's request for production.
The plaintiff next challenges the trial court's granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. He claims that he was entitled to have a jury determine whether Jones was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the assault. We disagree.
Gutierrez v. Thorne, 13 Conn.App. 493, 496, 537 A.2d 527 (1988). "In passing on a defendant's motion for summary judgment, the trial court is limited to deciding...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lenoble v. Best Temps, Inc.
...the facts before them whether, under this test, a servant was acting within the scope of his employment." Brown v. Housing Authority, 23 Conn.App. 624, 628, 583 A.2d 643 (1990) (citing Bradlow v. Am. Dist. Tel. Co., 131 Conn. 192, 195, 38 A.2d 679 (1944)). A question of law, however, arises......
-
Antinerella v. Rioux, 14734
...based on sovereign immunity would depend strictly on the allegations in his complaint.16 See footnote 8.17 In Brown v. Housing Authority, 23 Conn.App. 624, 583 A.2d 643 (1990), cert. denied, 217 Conn. 808, 585 A.2d 1233 (1991), a case brought under the theory of respondeat superior for dama......
-
Fiano v. Old Saybrook Fire Co.
...of his authority that the question is one of law." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Brown v. Housing Authority , 23 Conn. App. 624, 628, 583 A.2d 643 (1990), cert. denied, 217 Conn. 808, 585 A.2d 1233 (1991).In the present case, the Appellate Court's conclusion that the......
-
Fiano v. Old Saybrook Fire Co. No. 1, Inc.
...there are instances, such as the present case, where the question is so obvious that it becomes one of law. Brown v. Housing Authority , 23 Conn. App. 624, 628, 583 A.2d 643 (1990), cert. denied, 217 Conn. 808, 585 A.2d 1233 (1991). We now address the plaintiff's first assertion that there ......
-
1995 Connecticut Tort Law Review
...but neither the synopsis nor the opinion itself describes the count(s) on which the employee was held liable. 154. Id. at 145. 155. 23 Conn.App. 624,583 A.2d 643, cert. denied,217 Conn. 808,585 A.2d 1233 (1990). 156. Glucksman, supra, 38 Conn.App. at 148. 157. 39 Conn.App. 778, 668 A.2d 378......