Morrison Mahoney Partner Joe Mascaro and Associate Megan Kittler recently secured summary judgment in Connecticut Superior Court on behalf of their client, a property management company, in a high-exposure wrongful death case arising from a fatal drug overdose of an invitee of a foreclosed property.
Plaintiff alleged that our client controlled, possessed, and/or maintained a foreclosed property where the decedent overdosed and died, and claimed negligence and premises liability for failing to prevent alleged illicit drug activity on the premises. Joe and Megan moved for summary judgment, demonstrating that our client’s involvement with the property was limited to initiating a lease with the occupants of the foreclosed property, that our client had no duty to inspect or maintain the property, and that the decedent’s death was unforeseeable, too attenuated to impose a legal duty, and unsupported by evidence of any “defective premises” condition.
In its decision, the court agreed and granted summary judgment in full. The court found that our client had no legal duty to the decedent because it neither possessed nor controlled the property at the time of the incident, the decedent’s death was not foreseeable, and there was no evidence of any defect or dangerous condition the defendant knew or should have known about.
Importantly, the court noted that the case implicated an unsettled area of Connecticut law regarding the scope of a property manager’s duty for criminal acts occurring after its involvement has ended. In resolving this question, the court held that imposing such a duty under these facts would be inconsistent with Connecticut’s foreseeability principles and public policy, particularly where the alleged harm was the result of independent, criminal acts by third parties.
