Vitale v. Kowal, 27469.
Decision Date | 12 June 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 27469.,27469. |
Citation | 923 A.2d 778,101 Conn.App. 691 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Frederick VITALE, Administrator (Estate of Trevor B. Vitale), v. Steven KOWAL et al. |
Norman J. Voog, Ridgefield, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
John M. Rowan, Fairfield, for the appellee (defendant Kevin Gonzalez).
The plaintiff, Frederick Vitale, on his own behalf and as administrator of the estate of Trevor Vitale, his deceased son,1 appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant Kevin Gonzalez2 in this action for monetary damages, which the plaintiff claims were incurred as a result of Trevor Vitale's losing control of and crashing his automobile, tragically resulting in his death, after allegedly consuming alcohol with the defendant and Steven Kowal. The claims against the defendant sound in negligence and recklessness. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant after concluding that the defendant owed no legal duty to Trevor Vitale. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The trial court, viewing the evidence submitted in the light most favorable to the defendant, set forth the following facts.
The court further found:
In considering the merits of the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, the court held: On this basis, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the motion for summary judgment after concluding that the defendant owed no legal duty to Trevor Vitale. The plaintiff argues that there were issues of material fact in dispute and that this case was inappropriate for summary judgment. He argues that although the court found that the plaintiff had provided no evidence to support a conclusion that the defendant had provided any alcohol to the decedent, such a factual determination should have been left for the jury. Additionally, as to the court's determination that the defendant owed no legal duty to the decedent, the plaintiff argues that, even if the defendant did not provide alcohol to Trevor Vitale, because the dormitory room, at least in part, was under the control of the defendant and the defendant actively participated in the evening events, he did owe a legal duty to the decedent as a social host. We conclude that, on the basis of the state of the law as it existed in 2000, the trial court properly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant.3
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Rockwell v. Quintner, 96 Conn. App. 221, 227-30, 899 A.2d 738, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 917, 908 A.2d 538 (2006). On appeal, our review of the court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment is plenary. Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc., 263 Conn. 424, 450, 820 A.2d 258 (2003).
The plaintiff's claims against the defendant sounded in negligence and recklessness. More specifically, the plaintiff alleged in count five of the complaint that the defendant negligently and carelessly provided alcohol and a safe place to consume alcohol to Trevor Vitale, which ultimately resulted in his untimely death after he lost control of his automobile. In count six, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant provided a safe place for Trevor Vitale to consume alcohol, participated in drinking activities with Trevor...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hohmann v. Gtech Corp.
...for either negligence or recklessness. Jarmie v. Troncale, 306 Conn. 578, 589, 50 A.3d 802 (2012) (negligence); Vitale v. Kowal, 101 Conn.App. 691, 698, 923 A.2d 778 (2007) (recklessness). Plaintiffs do not allegein so many words that either Miller or GTECH owed any duty to them. The closes......
-
Roscoe v. Elim Park Baptist Home, Inc.
... ... internal quotation marks omitted.) Vitale v. Kowal , ... 101 Conn.App. 691, 698-99, 923 A.2d 778, cert. denied, 284 ... Conn ... ...
-
Pawlowski v. Delta Sigma PHI Fraternity, Inc.
...whether the [defendant] violated that duty in the particular situation at hand.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Vitale v. Kowal, 101 Conn.App. 691, 698, 923 A.2d 778, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 904, 931 A.2d 268 (2007). Under Connecticut case law, in order to hold a defendant liable as a ......
-
Borg v. Cloutier
... ... McCarthy, 105 Conn.App ... 596, 619; cert. denied, 286 Conn. 913 (2008); Vitale v ... Kowal, 101 Conn.App. 691, 700-01; cert. denied, 284 ... Conn. 904 (2007) ... ...