Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0
2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
Tran v. Woodworth
CUONG KIM TRAN v. MARK ALLEN WOODWORTH,
COADMINISTRATOR (ESTATE OF NANCY S.
WOODWORTH), ET AL.
(AC 46193)
Suarez, Seeley and Vertefeuille, Js.
Syllabus
The plaintiff sought to recover damages for, inter alia, personal injuries he
sustained as a result of a head-on motor vehicle collision that resulted
in the death of the defendants’ decedent. The plaintiff alleged that the
decedent’s negligence in operating her motor vehicle caused her vehicle
to cross over the double yellow lines into his lane of travel, causing the
collision. The defendants filed requests for admissions, which requested
that the plaintiff admit, inter alia, that he was distracted from the road-
way immediately prior to the collision and that he was unaware of the
existence of any evidence to contest that the collision occurred in the
decedent’s northbound lane of travel. As a result of the plaintiff’s failure
to respond to the requests, the requested admissions were deemed
admitted by the plaintiff pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 13-23). The
defendants thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming
that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that, on the
basis of the plaintiff’s admissions, it was uncontested that he, in his
distraction, had driven from his southbound lane of travel into the
northbound lane and, thus, caused the collision. The defendants also
submitted an affidavit from H, an engineer and accident reconstruction-
ist, attesting that he had reviewed police photographs from the scene
of the collision and that that information conclusively established that
the plaintiff’s vehicle had crossed from the southbound lane into the
northbound lane and collided with the decedent’s vehicle. The plaintiff
filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
to which he appended a signed, written statement of W, the only eyewit-
ness to the collision. W’s statement was taken by a police officer who
had responded to the scene of the accident. In his statement, W recalled,
inter alia, that he had been driving behind the plaintiff in the northbound
lane of travel and had witnessed the decedent’s vehicle drift from the
southbound lane and collide with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The trial court
granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, reasoning that,
because the plaintiff relied on an inconsistent statement from an eyewit-
ness as to his direction of travel when the collision occurred and that
the facts deemed admitted by the plaintiff demonstrated that the collision
occurred in the decedent’s lane of travel, no genuine issue of material
fact existed concerning the location of the collision. The court deter-
mined that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden in opposing sum-
mary judgment by submitting countervailing evidence to demonstrate