STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`
`DOCKET NUMBER: FBT-CV23-6120092-S
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`__________________________________________
`CONRAD JOHNS and
`)
`ELIZABETH JOHNS,
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendants.
`__________________________________________)
`
`ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al.,
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
`FAIRFIELD AT
`BRIDGEPORT
`
`May 3, 2023
`
`DEFENDANT ALFA LAVAL INC.’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`NOW COMES Defendant named as Alfa Laval Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Alfa
`
`Laval”), and pursuant to Practice Book § 17-44 et seq., hereby moves this Honorable Court to
`
`enter summary judgment on its behalf, as there are no genuine issues of material fact and Alfa
`
`Laval is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
`
`In further support of this Motion, Alfa Laval files herewith its Memorandum of Law in
`
`Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.
`
`Wherefore, Alfa Laval respectfully requests this Honorable Court to:
`
`1.
`
`Grant its Motion for Summary Judgment as to all counts of Plaintiffs’ Third
`
`Amended Complaint and all counts of the cross-claims of the Defendants/Cross-claim Plaintiffs;
`
`2.
`
`Provide such other relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary.
`
`
`
`DOCKET NUMBER: FBT-CV23-6120092-S
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`__________________________________________
`CONRAD JOHNS and
`)
`ELIZABETH JOHNS,
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendants.
`__________________________________________)
`
`ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al.,
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
`FAIRFIELD AT
`BRIDGEPORT
`
`May 3, 2023
`
`DEFENDANT ALFA LAVAL INC.’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`NOW COMES Defendant named as Alfa Laval Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Alfa
`
`Laval”), and pursuant to Practice Book § 17-44 et seq., hereby moves this Honorable Court to
`
`enter summary judgment on its behalf, as there are no genuine issues of material fact and Alfa
`
`Laval is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
`
`In further support of this Motion, Alfa Laval files herewith its Memorandum of Law in
`
`Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.
`
`Wherefore, Alfa Laval respectfully requests this Honorable Court to:
`
`1.
`
`Grant its Motion for Summary Judgment as to all counts of Plaintiffs’ Third
`
`Amended Complaint and all counts of the cross-claims of the Defendants/Cross-claim Plaintiffs;
`
`2.
`
`Provide such other relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Defendant Alfa Laval Inc.,
`By its Attorney:
`
`
`/s/ 426465
`Kevin W. Hadfield, Juris No. 426465
`MANNING GROSS + MASSENBURG LLP
`One Citizens Plaza, Suite 620
`Providence, Rhode Island 02903
`Telephone: (401) 443-2100
`Facsimile: (401) 443-2140
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Kevin W. Hadfield, attorney for Defendant Alfa Laval Inc., hereby certify that I served
`a copy of the above document electronically on Christopher Meisenkothen, Esq. of Early,
`Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen, LLC and notice of same on all known defense counsel of
`record, on May 3, 2023.
`
`
`/s/ 426465
`Kevin W. Hadfield, Esq.
`
`
`
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT
`
`DOCKET NUMBER: FBT-CV23-6120092-S
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`__________________________________________
`CONRAD JOHNS and
`)
`ELIZABETH JOHNS,
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendants.
`__________________________________________)
`
`ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al.,
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
`FAIRFIELD AT
`BRIDGEPORT
`
`May 3, 2023
`
`DEFENDANT ALFA LAVAL INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
`SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`NOW COMES Defendant named as Alfa Laval Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Alfa
`
`Laval”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to Practice Book § 17-44 et seq.,
`
`hereby moves this Honorable Court to enter summary judgment on its behalf, as there are no
`
`genuine issues of material fact and Alfa Laval is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiffs
`
`bring this action to recover for, among other things, injuries suffered by Plaintiff, Conrad Johns
`
`(hereinafter “Mr. Johns” or “Plaintiff”), due to his alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
`
`products, including products sold by Alfa Laval. Alfa Laval is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`
`law as there is no evidence that Mr. Johns ever came in contact with an asbestos-containing product
`
`sold or supplied by Alfa Laval.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint contains allegations that Mr. Johns was exposed to
`
`asbestos-containing products through his work in the Navy from approximately 1959-1963 and
`
`International Business Machines Corporation in the mid-to-late 1960s (See Plaintiffs’ Third
`
`Amended Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit 1, Count I, para. 5.) This alleged contact caused
`
`Mr. Johns’ asbestos-related injuries (Id. at para. 5). However, Plaintiffs have not produced any
`
`evidence that Mr. Johns ever worked with and/or around any Alfa Laval product(s), much less an
`
`asbestos-containing Alfa Laval product. Furthermore, there has been no evidence produced by the
`
`Defendants/Cross-claim Plaintiffs that would give rise to a cause of action against Alfa Laval.
`
`III. LAW AND ARGUMENT
`
`Practice Book § 17-49 states 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.” The party
`
`seeking summary judgment has “the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all
`
`the material facts which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment
`
`as a matter of law.” Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 229 Conn. 99, 105 (1994). The party
`
`opposing the motion for summary judgment in turn “must provide an evidentiary foundation to
`
`demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. The Court, when deciding a
`
`motion for summary judgment, must determine whether the moving party would be entitled to a
`
`directed verdict if the same set of facts were presented at trial. See Haesche v. Kissner, 229 Conn.
`
`213, 217 (1994). A directed verdict is properly rendered when the evidence, viewed in the light
`
`most favorable to the non-moving party is such that the “trier of fact could not reasonably reach
`
`
`
`any other conclusion than that embodied in the verdict as directed.” United Oil Co. v. Urban
`
`Redevelopment Comm., 158 Conn. 364, 380 (1969).
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Connecticut Product Liability Act, Conn. Gen.
`
`Stat. § 52-572m et seq. (“CPLA”). In order to recover under the provisions of the CPLA, Plaintiff
`
`must prove that:
`
`(1) the defendant was engaged in the business of selling the product;
`
`(2) the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous
`
`to the consumer or user; (3) the defect caused the injury for which
`
`compensation was sought; (4) the defect existed at the time of the
`
`sale; and (5) the product was expected to and did reach the consumer
`
`without substantial change in its condition. Restatement (Second)
`
`of Torts, § 402A (1965).
`
`See Giglio v. Connecticut Light and Power Co., 180 Conn. 230, 234 (1980). See also, Zichichi v.
`
`Middlesex Memorial Hospital, 204 Conn. 399, 403 (1987); Coe-Park Donuts, Inc. v. Robertshaw
`
`Controls Co., 1 Conn. App. 84, 88-89 (1983). Plaintiffs must also prove that the defect proximately
`
`caused their injuries. See Haesche, 229 Conn. at 218 citing Wierzbicki v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 20
`
`Conn. App. 332, 334 (1989).
`
`It is not enough for Plaintiffs to allege exposure to a defendant’s product as mere
`
`allegations of exposure do not establish exposure as a matter of law. See Miller v. United
`
`Technologies Corp., 233 Conn. 732, 745 (1995). Moreover, when the size of workplaces where
`
`asbestos was commonly used is considered, mere proof that a plaintiff and an asbestos product are
`
`in the workplace at the same time does not establish exposure to that product. See Roberts v.
`
`Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 726 F. Supp. 172, 174 (W.D. Mich. 1989). The “plaintiff must
`
`
`
`show that a particular defendant's product was used at the job site and that the plaintiff was in
`
`proximity to that product at the time it was being used.” Robertson v. Allied Signal, Inc., 914 F.2d
`
`360, 368, 382 (3rd Cir. 1990); quoting Zimmer v. Celotex Corp., 549 N.E.2d 881, 884 (Ill. App.
`
`Ct. 1989). Under any causation test, a “plaintiff still must produce evidence sufficient to support
`
`an inference that he inhaled asbestos dust from the defendant's product.” Peerman v. Georgia-
`
`Pacific Corp., 35 F.2d 284, 287 (7th Cir. 1994).
`
`
`
`There is no evidence that Mr. Johns worked with and/or around any asbestos containing
`
`products sold or supplied by Alfa Laval product. Therefore, Alfa Laval is entitled to Summary
`
`Judgment as a matter of law.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, Defendant Alfa Laval’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`should be granted.
`
`Wherefore, Alfa Laval respectfully requests this Honorable Court to:
`
`1.
`
`Grant its Motion for Summary Judgment as to all counts of Plaintiffs’ Third
`
`Amended Complaint and all counts of the cross-claims of the Defendants/Cross-claim Plaintiffs;
`
`and
`
`2.
`
`Provide such other relief as this Honorable Court deems necessary.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Defendant Alfa Laval Inc.,
`By its Attorney:
`
`
`/s/ 426465
`Kevin W. Hadfield, Juris No. 426465
`MANNING GROSS + MASSENBURG LLP
`One Citizens Plaza, Suite 620
`Providence, Rhode Island 02903
`Telephone: (401) 443-2100
`Facsimile: (401) 443-2140
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Kevin W. Hadfield, attorney for Defendant Alfa Laval Inc., hereby certify that I served
`a copy of the above document electronically on Christopher Meisenkothen, Esq. of Early,
`Lucarelli, Sweeney & Meisenkothen, LLC and notice of same on all known defense counsel of
`record, on May 3, 2023.
`
`
`/s/ 426465
`Kevin W. Hadfield, Esq.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
