WOLVEN, JUDGE.
The plaintiff moves this court for summary judgment, as to liability only. The plaintiff alleges that he was traveling in a westerly direction in the left lane on Fairfield Avenue, in Bridgeport, CT, near Gilman St. The defendant, who was traveling in the same direction in the right lane on Fairfield Ave., attempted to make a left turn onto Gilman Street and collided with the right front of the plaintiff's vehicle.
In its memorandum in support of this motion the plaintiff asserts that there is no issue of fact and that it is entitled to judgment of liability as a matter of law. The plaintiff also submitted to the court his affidavit, as well as a certified copy of the police report. While the defendant denied the allegations of negligence in her answer, she did not provide any affidavits, or other documentation in support of her position that summary judgment is not warranted. The primary thrust of the defendant's argument is that summary judgment is inappropriate in a negligence action.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment must be granted if the pleadings, affidavits, and other documentary proof 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. P.B. § 17-49; Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 229 Conn. 99, 105 (1994); Telesco v. Telesco, 187 Conn. 715, 718 (1982); Yanow v. Teal Industries, Inc., 178 Conn. 262, 268 (1979). A "material" fact is one which will make a difference in the outcome of the case. Hammer v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co., 214 Conn. 573, 578 (1990). In ruling upon a summary judgment motion, the court merely determines whether an issue of fact exists, but does not try the issue if it does exist. Michaud v. Gurney, 168 Conn. 431, 432 (1975). "In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Connecticut Bank CT Page 10881-dd Trust Co. v. Carriage Lane Associates, 219 Conn. 772, 780-81 (1980).
Summary judgment should be denied if the defendant "raises at least one legally sufficient defense that would bar the plaintiff's claim . . ." Perille v. Raybestos-Manhattan-Europe, Inc., 196 Conn. 529, 543, 494 A.2d 555 (1985). On a motion for summary judgment the moving party has the burden of showing the absence of a material fact, "the opposing party must substantiate its adverse claim with evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue." Haesche v. Kissner, 229 Conn. 213, 217, 640 A.2d 89 (1994). Summary judgment should only be granted if the pleadings, affidavits and other proof submitted demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Scinto v. Stam, 224 Conn. 524, 530, cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 176, 126 L.Ed.2d 136 (1993); Connell v. Colwell, 214 Conn. 242, 246, 571 A.2d 116 (1991). 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).
Mere assertions of fact are insufficient to establish the existence of an issue of material fact and cannot refute evidence that is properly presented to a court in support of a motion for summary judgment. Miller v. United Technologies Corp., 233 Conn. 732 (1995). Evidence in support of motions for summary judgment and opposition to such motions must be admissible evidence. Evidence that is inadmissible cannot be relied upon for purposes of a motion for summary judgment. Fogarty v. Rashaw, 193 Conn. 442, 444, 476 A.2d 582 (1984); see, Practice Book Sections 17-45, 17-46. If the non-moving party fails to respond with specific facts, the court is entitled to rely upon the facts stated in the affidavit of the movant. Id. If such affidavit, pleading or 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, the motion for summary judgment should be granted. Practice Book Section 17-49.
The Connecticut Supreme Court has stated that the granting of summary judgment is generally not appropriate in a negligence case. "Litigants have a constitutional right to have issues of fact decided by a jury . . . Summary judgment procedure is especially ill-adapted to negligence cases, where . . . the ultimate issue in contention involves a mixed question of fact and law, and requires the trier of fact to determine whether the standard of care was met in a specific situation . . . [T]he conclusion of negligence is necessarily one of fact . . . Issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Michaud v. Gurney, 168 Conn. 431, CT Page 10881-de 434, 362 A.2d 857 (1975).
Discussion
The plaintiff submitted to this court a certified copy of the police report. The reporting officer observed the collision and noted in the report: "Veh #1 [defendant] attempted to make a left turn onto Gilman St. from the far right lane and struck Veh #2 which was traveling in the left lane." The officer also noted that the defendant "stated that she look[ed] in her rear view mirror and did not see any oncoming traffic so she attempt[ed] to make the left turn." This report, which is certified, provides an eye witness report by the police officer, as well as a statement by the party opponent. The court determines this is competent evidence which the court can consider in determining this motion.
Also submitted by the plaintiff is his sworn statement, which also states that the defendant attempted to take a left turn from the right lane and collided with his car, which was in the left lane. Of significance, the defendant fails to submit an affidavit contesting the facts as articulated by the plaintiff and police officer; nor, were special defenses pleaded by the defendant, which would place the conduct of the plaintiff at issue. The court recognizes that issues of negligence are not ordinarily appropriate for disposition by summary judgment. Nonetheless, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of his motion, together with the absence of evidence to rebut this evidence demonstrate that the plaintiff has met his burden of proof to show that no genuine issues of material fact remain as to the issue of liability. This case fits into the exception of the general rule concerning summary judgment in negligence cases. See: DeJesus v. Rowe, 2002 Ct. Sup. 281, No. CV 01 0446290, Superior Court Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven (January 8, 2002, Robinson, J.).
For the foregoing reasons the plaintiff's motion is granted as to liability only.
CAROL WOLVEN, J. CT Page 10881-df