The Supreme Court of Connecticut has reversed the finding of an appeals court, and remanded for further proceedings the claim of a parent, who sought to recover damages from a sports facility for the injuries her daughter sustained during a soccer game, when her foot became caught in the carpeted playing surface.
In ruling for the facility, the high court determined that the defendant did not have “constructive notice of the inherent dangerousness of the surface.”
The injury occurred at the Farmington Indoor Sports Arena, located in Farmington, Connecticut. Michelle DiPietro named Farmington Sports Arena, LLC (Arena), Dimensional Technology Group, LLC (Dimensional Technology), DiTommaso Associates, LLC (Associates), and Paul DiTommaso, Jr., individually (DiTommaso) as defendants.
In her claim, she alleged that the defendants were negligent by installing and maintaining a carpet surface in the facility that was unreasonably dangerous for soccer.
The defendants successfully moved for summary judgment. The trial court found that the plaintiff “had failed to establish genuine issues of material fact on essential elements of her premises liability actions. Specifically, the court held that expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care applicable to an indoor soccer arena and that the plaintiff had not produced evidence that the defendants had notice of the alleged hazardous condition of the playing surface.” The plaintiff appealed.
The appeals court disagreed, finding that the plaintiff’s claim “rests on the rules of law applicable to premises liability in which the law itself imposes the standard of care, namely, the duty to provide and to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition.” The defendants appealed.
In its analysis, the high court noted that “at the time of Michelle’s injury, there were no industry or government standards regulating the use of playing surfaces for indoor soccer. The United States Indoor Soccer Association, of which Arena is a member, did not prohibit the use of carpeting for indoor soccer, and carpet commonly was used in indoor soccer facilities in Connecticut. The defendants offered testimony that the major indoor soccer league in the United States used similar carpeting.”
“A contractor installed the carpet over a flat concrete floor in November, 2001, and the facility was inspected and approved shortly thereafter by the Connecticut Junior Soccer Association, which sanctions commercial indoor soccer facilities. A site inspection found the playing surface to be flat and even, firmly secured to the underlying concrete surface and free of visible defects. Mike J. Brown, Michelle’s soccer coach, who had prior experience with similar playing surfaces at other indoor soccer facilities, attested in an uncontroverted affidavit that the carpet was ‘normal,’ ‘in good condition,’ and without ‘damaged areas, lumps, rolls, cuts, tears, or any other foreign objects’ at the time of Michelle’s injury. DiTommaso testified in his deposition that he had not received any complaints about the carpet other than the one from the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not dispute that the carpet was not defective in the sense of improper installation or maintenance.”
The justices continued: “In the absence of visually discoverable hazards, previous indications of danger, or industry and government standards, the defendants’ duty did not extend to the type of scientific testing required to uncover the carpet’s alleged inherent defects. Because the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the defendants’ actual or constructive notice of the dangerousness of the carpet, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment unless some exception to the notice requirement applied.”
Karen Dipietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, et al. Karen Dipietro v. Dimensional Technology Group, LLC, et al.; S.Ct. Conn.; SC 18726, 306 Conn. 107; 2012 Conn. LEXIS 323; 8/28/12
Attorneys of Record: (for appellants) Kenneth J. Bartschi, with whom were Brendon P. Levesque and, on the brief, Karen L. Dowd, Jeffrey G. Schwartz, Christopher M. Vossler and Kevin M. Tighe. (for appellee) David G. Hill.
