Desnoyers v. Wells

• Decision Date: 13 August 1985
• Docket Number: No. 3344,3344
• Citation: 496 A.2d 237,4 Conn.App. 666
• Parties: Joseph DESNOYERS v. James R. WELLS et al.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

Page 237

496 A.2d 237

4 Conn.App. 666

Joseph DESNOYERS v. James R. WELLS et al.

No. 3344.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued June 5, 1985.

Decided Aug. 13, 1985.

John P. Tedeschi, New London, for appellant (plaintiff).

Robert C. Danaher, Hartford, for appellee (defendant Stihl, Inc.).

Before HULL, SPALLONE and DALY, JJ.

DALY, Judge.

This action was instituted on behalf of the plaintiff, a minor who was injured by a chain saw, against the named defendant as the owner and user of the saw, and the defendant Stihl, Inc., as the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the saw. ¹ The plaintiff alleged strict tort liability, negligence and breach of warranty against the defendants. From the granting of the defendant Stihl, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff has appealed.

The factual situation as set forth in the pleadings and affidavits ² indicates the following: The chain saw was manufactured in 1973 by Andreas Stihl, a West German limited partnership. On October 22, 1973, the chain saw was sold and imported to the United States. The defendant was organized as a Delaware corporation in August of 1974, and is in the business of manufacturing chainsaws. Andreas Stihl did not engage in any business in the United States between October 22, 1973, and May 3, 1979. There was no nexus established between the defendant and Andreas Stihl. The defendant did not manufacture, purchase, import, distribute or sell the chain saw.

The plaintiff challenges the granting of the summary judgment.

" 'A trial court may appropriately render summary judgment when the documents submitted demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact remaining between the parties and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Practice Book § 384; Yanow v. Teal Industries, Inc., 178 Conn. 262, 268, 422 A.2d 311 (1979); United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Commission, 158 Conn. 364, 377-78, 260 A.2d 596 (1969).' ... Once the moving party has presented evidence in support of the motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue." (Citations omitted.) Burns v. Hartford Hospital, 192 Conn. 451, 455, 472 A.2d 1257 (1984). " 'When a motion for summary judgment is supported by affidavits and other documents, an adverse party, by affidavit or as otherwise provided by [Practice Book] § 380, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, and if he does not so respond, the court is entitled to rely upon the facts stated in the affidavit of the movant.' " Kakadelis v. DeFabritis, 191 Conn. 276, 280-81, 464 A.2d 57 (1983).

Here, it was uncontradicted that the defendant did not manufacture, sell or distribute the chain saw in question since the defendant did not come into existence until the following year. The plaintiff never presented an affidavit that "he could not for some reason 'present facts essential to justify his opposition' which would authorize the court to deny the summary judgment motion or to grant a continuance to allow an opportunity to gather...