DEWEY, JUDGE.
The plaintiff Rosa Barrett alleges that on July 26, 2000 she sustained severe burns while taking a shower at the defendant condominium complex. The defendant Colonial Gardens Condominium, Inc. has moved for summary judgment claiming the plaintiff, who is precluded by prior court order from introducing expert testimony, cannot establish either liability or causation.
Practice Book § 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Although the party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any material fact, a party opposing summary judgment must substantiate its adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact, together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue. Practice Book §§ 17-45, 17-46; Burns v. Hartford Hospital, 192 Conn. 451, 455, 472 A.2d 1257 (1984).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Strada v. Connecticut Newspapers, Inc., 193 Conn. 313, 317, 477 A.2d 1005 (1984). Summary judgment is "designed to eliminate the delay and expense of litigating an issue where there is no real issue to be tried." Wilson v. City of New Haven, 213 Conn. 277, 279, 567 A.2d 829 (1989). "In order to surmount a motion for summary judgment, a party must demonstrate that there exists a genuine issue of material fact . . . Demonstrating a genuine issue requires a showing of evidentiary facts or substantial evidence outside the pleadings from which material facts alleged in the pleadings can be warrantably inferred . . . A material fact is one that will make a difference in the result of the case . . . To establish the existence of a material fact, it is not enough for the party opposing summary judgment merely to assert the existence of a disputed issue . . CT Page 17425 . Such assertions are insufficient regardless of whether they are contained in a complaint or a brief. Further, unadmitted allegations in the pleadings do not constitute proof of the existence of a genuine issue as to any material facts . . . (Internal citations omitted.)" Michalak v. DSA Corporation, No. CV-00-0070641S, Superior Court, Judicial District of Ansonia-Milford at Derby (October 21, 2002, Lager, J.).
In the present case the plaintiff has alleged she was a guest in one of the condominium units. (Count One, paragraph 3). She further alleges that the unit's bathroom contained "a device for adjusting the temperature of the water . . ." (Count One, paragraph 4). The plaintiff contends that as she reached to adjust the heat, "the faucet shot out, spewing scalding hot water all over her." (Count One, paragraphs 6, 7).
In her complaint against the defendant Colonial Gardens Condominium, the plaintiff alleges
The carelessness and negligence of the defendant Association caused injuries to Ms. Barrett in one or more of the following ways:
a. The bath was in a dangerous and defective condition for the use and purposes intended in that:
i. The faucet was improperly attached to the tub wall so that it released at a slight touch . . .
ii. The hot water heater heated to a temperature so excessive that it caused Ms. Barrett to suffer the injuries set forth . . .
iii. The mixing valve or device which regulated the temperature of the water in the shower was improperly adjusted . . .
iv. The systems for regulating the boiler which produced the hot water for the bath at the Unit was improperly adjusted . . .
(Count Nine)
The defendant claims that absent expert testimony, the plaintiff cannot establish either liability or causation. "Whether expert testimony was required to support the plaintiff's claim compels us to consider whether the determination of the standard of care requires knowledge that is CT Page 17426 beyond the experience of [the] fact finder . . ." (internal citations omitted; internal quotations omitted) "except in the unusual case where the want of care or skill is so gross that it presents an almost conclusive inference of want of care." Doe v. Yale University, 252 Conn. 641, 686-87, 748 A.2d 834 (2000).
By prior court order, the plaintiff is precluded from introducing substantive expert testimony. The question then becomes whether an ordinary fact finder could reasonably infer, based on its own judgment and experience, that the defendant had breached the standard of care in the manner set forth in the complaint.
The plaintiff suggests that this court, and a subsequent jury, should rely on common sense. In this case more is required. The plaintiff's own complaint suggests a myriad of possible defects, all of which require expert testimony. There is the condition of the faucet, water heater and boiler, their installation and construction, the inspections in the past, control and the conduct of the plaintiff. This is not a situation from which negligence can be inferred.
The plaintiff does not challenge the fact that she is precluded from introducing expert testimony, arguing instead that such is not required. "To be entitled to damages a plaintiff must establish a causal relationship between the injury and the physical condition which he claims resulted from it . . . This causal connection must rest upon more than surmise or conjecture . . ." Aspiazu v. Orgera, 205 Conn. 623, 630-32, 535 A.2d 338 (1987). Resolving the above questions, especially causation, requires expert testimony. See Sickmund v. Connecticut Co., 122 Conn. 375, 379, 189 A. 876 (1937).
The defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
DEWEY, J. CT Page 17427