Tuite v. Hosp. of Cent. Conn.

• Decision Date: 26 March 2013
• Docket Number: No. 34222.,34222.
• Citation: 141 Conn.App. 573,61 A.3d 1187
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: Mark TUITE v. The HOSPITAL OF CENTRAL CONNECTICUT.

141 Conn.App. 573

61 A.3d 1187

Mark TUITE

v.The HOSPITAL OF CENTRAL CONNECTICUT.

No. 34222.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 13, 2013.

Decided March 26, 2013.

March 26, 2013.

Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Pittman, J. motion to intervene; Alander, J. judgment.

Cynthia I. Crockett, Hartford, for the appellant (named plaintiff).

Albert G. Danker, Jr., Hartford, for the appellee (defendant).

LAVINE, ALVORD and PELLEGRINO, Js.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a negligence action brought by the plaintiff Mark Tuite ¹ against the defendant, The Hospital of Central Connecticut, concerning an injury the plaintiff purportedly suffered when he allegedly slipped on a drop of oil on the floor of the hospital cafeteria while making a salad at the salad bar. Following a bench trial, the court, Alander, J., rendered judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff's complaint and subsequently denied his motion for reargument and reconsideration. On appeal, the plaintiff (1) claims that the court incorrectly applied the mode of operation doctrine ² and (2) challenges the court's evidentiary rulings regarding whether the mode of operation of the defendant's salad bar created a hazard of spilled oil and whether the defendant took reasonable steps to discover and remove any hazards. The plaintiff further asserts that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for reargument and reconsideration.

After examining the record and the briefs and considering the arguments of the parties, we are persuaded that the court correctly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. The issues raised by the plaintiff were resolved properly in the trial court's thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision. See Tuite v. Hospital of Central Connecticut, 52 Conn. Sup. 544, ––– A.3d –––– (2011). We therefore adopt the memorandum of decision as the proper statement of the relevant facts, issues and applicable law. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See, e.g., Council 4, AFSCME, AFL–CIO v. State Ethics Commission, 304 Conn. 672, 673, 41 A.3d 656 (2012); Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010); Nestico v. Weyman, 140 Conn.App. 499, 500, 59 A.3d 337 (2013); Green v. DeFrank, 132 Conn.App. 331, 332, 33 A.3d 754 (2011).

The plaintiff also challenges the denial of his motion for reargument and reconsideration. Because we conclude that the court properly rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for reargument and reconsideration. See, e.g., Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn.App. 436, 452–53, 897 A.2d 624, ...