Loughlin FitzGerald Obtains Dismissal of Vicarious Liability Claims Against Rental Car Company In this automobile accident case, the Connecticut Superior Court struck all claims against our client, a rental car company, based on the abolition of the vicarious liability of vehicle lessors pursuant to the Graves Amendment to 49 U.S.C. § 30106. The importance of this decision was the Court’s upholding of the constitutionality of the Graves Amendment in the face of a challenge by Plaintiff, on the grounds that the federal statute was beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Unitrin Preferred Insurance Co. v. Chapman, Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville, 2008 WL 2582666 (Conn.Super.Ct. June 12, 2008) (Sferrazza, J.).

Boating incident on the Connecticut River results in a defendant's verdict for Loughlin Fitzgerald client. A jury of six in New London Superior Court returned a defendant’s verdict in favor of a Loughlin Fitzgerald client. Our client was alleged to have created a dangerous wake while in a “Slow –No Wake Zone” adjacent to a yacht club on the Connecticut River. The plaintiff was injured while a passenger on a 16 ½’ fishing boat being operated by her boyfriend when it was rocked by a large wake claimed to have been created when the defendant suddenly accelerated the engines on his 35’ Cabo Express Cruiser as the boats passed port to port. Plaintiff suffered a fractured hip and underwent two surgeries, resulting in medical bills and lost wages in excess of $85,000.

The law firm of Loughlin FitzGerald, P.C. is pleased to announce that Attorney Michael C. Deakin has joined the firm. Prior to joining the firm, Attorney Deakin was a named partner in the firm of Clark & Deakin, LLC, in Shelton, Connecticut. Attorney Deakin’s practice will continue to focus primarily on civil litigation and insurance defense, with a concentration in admiralty law, municipal liability, product liability, tort law and insurance coverage disputes. He has tried numerous jury and bench trials to verdict in both federal and state court, and has extensive appellate experience, having appeared before the Supreme and Appellate Courts of Connecticut as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Loughlin FitzGerald, P.C. obtains a defendant's verdict on behalf of Wesleyan University. A Middletown jury returned a defendant's verdict in favor of Loughlin FitzGerald client Wesleyan University in a premises liability case brought by Debra Tocco. Ms. Tocco claimed she tripped on a rug that covered a hole in the concourse at the former Wesleyan Arena, now known as the Spurrier-Snyder Rink, in the Freeman Athletic Center while attending an ice skating competition. Ms. Tocco claimed a fractured ankle and subsequent surgery to repair ligament damage.

Defendant’s Verdict rendered in favor of Loughlin FitzGerald client. On July 19, 2007, the jury found in favor of our client on all counts in this bitterly-contested dispute between neighbors that involved claims of malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress, in connection with charges of breach of the peace, stalking, and violation of a no contact order brought against Plaintiff.

Appellate Court affirms dismissal of case brought against Loughlin FitzGerald client. In Angiolillo v. Buckmiller, 102 Conn. App. 697, --- A.2d --- (2007), the Appellate Court affirmed the summary judgment we obtained in the trial court on behalf of our clients, on Plaintiffs’ claims of violations of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a et seq., and Connecticut’s Notary Public statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-94l, common law recklessness, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Appellate Court held that the Superior Court properly granted summary judgment to the Defendants on these claims, brought in the context of an alleged wrongful interment of one of the Plaintiffs’ elderly family members. During litigation in the trial court, Plaintiffs demanded a settlement in the millions of dollars. Following the granting of summary judgment on most counts in our favor, and trial on the remaining counts, Plaintiffs reduced their demand to $100,000.00. The Appellate Court’s decision has the effect of affirming the jury’s award, reduced by collateral sources to $9,005.

Defendant’s Verdict in favor of Loughlin FitzGerald client. In MacCallum v. New York Yankees Partnership, Loughlin FitzGerald represented the New York Yankees Partnership in this diversity action brought in federal court. The plaintiff claimed he was injured in a falldown on a ramp inside Yankee Stadium. The Plaintiff patron claimed serious personal injuries, and made a settlement demand of $450,000.00. The matter was tried to a jury, which rendered a defendant’s verdict in the case. The trial was featured in an article published in the Connecticut Law Tribune, 33 CLT 30 (July 23, 2007), entitled, “Wallingford Man Strikes Out In Suit Against Yankees”.

Defendant’s Verdict in Noyes v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., rendered on November 1, 2006. This case involved a slip and fall inside the bathroom of a commercial building, and plaintiff claimed resulting traumatic brain injury and other significant injuries and damages. The last demand prior to trial was $1,500,000.00. Our office represented Defendant Johnson Controls, Inc., which was sued for negligent maintenance of the premises. Following a 3-week jury trial in the Middletown Superior Court, we obtained a defendant’s verdict on behalf of Johnson Controls, Inc. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict.

Defendant’s Verdict in Taylor v. D’Angelo, rendered September 29, 2006. This action involved a fall on a public sidewalk abutting the Defendant’s commercial premises. After considerable argument concerning the legal duty imposed by Connecticut law upon abutting property owners with regard to the effect of natural causes, and the natural flow of surface water, the Court instructed the jury in accordance with our view of the law, and the jury rendered a Defendant’s verdict, finding that our client had not breached any legal duty to Plaintiff.

Defendant’s Verdict in Dugas v. Connecticut Int’l Skating Center, LLC, et al., rendered September 19, 2006. This action involved injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff while skating at Defendant’s rink, based on the alleged existence of a defect in the surface of the ice. Loughlin FitzGerald represented the rink management company that was operating the rink. The jury found no defect, and rendered a defendant’s verdict in favor of our client.

Vicarious Liability Claim stricken in Davis v. Ilama, Judicial District of Waterbury at Waterbury, 2006 WL 1148702, 41 Conn. L. Rptr. 178 (Conn.Super.Ct. Mar. 14, 2006) (Brunetti, J.). In a case of first impression in Connecticut, and only the third of its kind in the United States, the Superior Court struck a claim against our client, a motor vehicle rental company, alleging vicarious liability under Connecticut law for injuries allegedly inflicted by a negligent lessee. In Davis, the court agreed with us that a recent amendment to the federal motor vehicle rental statute, 49 U.S.C. § 30106, pre-empted Connecticut law and abolished all vicarious liability for vehicle lessors. In Davis, the Plaintiff’s action was commenced one day after the federal amendment took effect, and the claim was held barred. The court’s decision, and our role in obtaining that result, were featured in an article published in the Connecticut Law Tribune, 32 CLT 16 (Apr. 10, 2006), entitled, “Day Late, Defendant Short”.

Summary Judgment granted in Shafer v. Frederick J. Sullivan V.F.W. Post 2212, et al., Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown, 2006 WL 1530183 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 22, 2006) (Beach, J.). This action was brought by the mother and administratrix of the estate of a 20-year-old minor who died in a one car accident after leaving a Halloween party held at the local VFW hall. We moved for summary judgment on the grounds that our client, the permittee of the VFW, was immune from liability for negligence pursuant to the Federal Volunteer Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 14501 et. seq., and that there could be no vicarious liability on the part of the permittee for the reckless service of alcohol by the VFW employees under Connecticut law. The Superior Court agreed and granted the motion in its entirety.