[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]
The plaintiff claims that the defendant's league breached its duty to him by: (a) failing to select, employ and train its umpires to properly protect and prevent vicious attacks upon players in the YMCA Industrial Softball League; (b) failing to immediately remove Mr. Abdul-Lateef from the game when it was evident from his statements and actions immediately preceding the intentional, willful and malicious attack on the plaintiff that Mr. Abdul-Lateef was a danger to other players; and (c) failing to CT Page 16551 render proper first aid and assistance to the plaintiff.
In reaching its decision, the Court is mindful of and guided by the public policy considerations set forth in Jaworski v. Kiernan, 241 Conn. 399 (1997).
The defendant Waterbury Young Men's Christian Association's assertion that Mr. Nicholas Capobianco, the umpire, was an independent contractor and not an employee is a matter of dispute. The plaintiff has provided some, albeit minimal, evidence that the defendant, Waterbury Young Men's Christian Association, exercised control over the performance of the umpires in their league, i.e., testimony by the defendant Faheem Abdul-Lateef that he was informed by an umpire at his next game that he was ejected from the league at the behest of the defendant Waterbury Young Men's Christian Association. The existence of this dispute and the applicability of the doctrine of respondeat superior, however, is not dispositive of the issue before this Court.
The most favorable, yet fair and reasonable reading of the plaintiff's first allegation of negligence against this defendant, does assert independent claims of negligence on the part of the defendant Waterbury Young Men's Christian Association (a) failing to select, employ and train its umpires to properly protect and prevent vicious attacks upon the CT Page 16552 players in the YMCA Industrial Softball League (emphasis supplied). The second and third allegations (b) failing to immediately remove Mr. Abdul-Lateef from the game when it was evident from his statements and actions immediately proceeding the intentional, willful and malicious attack on the plaintiff that Mr. Abdul-Lateef was a danger to the other players; and (c) failing to render proper first aid and assistance to the plaintiff can impose liability on the defendant Waterbury Young Men's Christian Association only if negligence was found on the part of the umpire, Nicholas Capobianco.
"A breach of duty by the defendant and a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and the resulting harm to the plaintiff are essential elements of a cause of action in negligence." Catz v. Rubenstein, 201 Conn. 39, 44, 513 A.2d 98 (1986); see RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 384, 650 A.2d 153 (1994) ("essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are well established: duty; breach of that duty; causation; and actual injury").
"The existence of a duty is a question of law and [o]nly if such a duty is found to exist does the trier of fact then determine whether the defendant violated that duty in the particular situation at hand. Petriello v. Kalman, 215 Conn. 377, 382-83, 576 A.2d 474 (1990). If a court determines, as a matter of law, that a defendant owes no duty to a plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot recover in negligence from the defendant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., supra, 231 Conn. 384-85.
If the determination of the standard of care requires knowledge that is beyond the experience of an ordinary fact finder, expert testimony will be required. Jaffe v. State Dept. of Health, 135 Conn. 339, 349,64 A.2d 330 (1949); Sickmund v. Connecticut Co., 122 Conn. 375, 379,189 A. 876 (1937); Slimak v. Foster, 106 Conn. 366, 368, 138 A. 153 (1927); Matyas v. Minck, 37 Conn. App. 321, 326, 655 A.2d 1155 (1995).
The plaintiffs' claims in the present case are akin to allegations of professional negligence or malpractice, which we have previously defined as "the failure of one rendering professional services to exercise that degree of skill and learning commonly applied under all the circumstances in the community by the average prudent reputable member of the profession with the result of injury, loss, or damage to the recipient of those services." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Davis v. Margolis,215 Conn. 408, 415, 576 A.2d 489 (1990)
In this case, as in Santopietro v. City of New Haven, 239 Conn. 207682 A.2d 106, (1996), the plaintiff does not articulate clearly the CT Page 16553 umpire's duty upon which he bases his claim. More importantly, the plaintiff has provided no evidence of the existence or scope of an umpire's duty. However, even if this Court will, as the Supreme Court did in Santopietro, assume without the citing that an umpire has a duty to exercise reasonable judgment in order to maintain control of a game so as to prevent an unreasonable risk of injury to others, the plaintiff in this case has provided no evidence (either lay or expert, as would seem to be required under Santopietro) of a breach of that duty. If the umpire cannot be found to be negligent, then the defendant Waterbury Young Men's Christian Association cannot be held liable regardless of the status of the relationship between the defendant Waterbury Young Men's Christian Association and the umpire.
Similarly, the plaintiff has provided no evidence of any independent duty of the defendant Waterbury Young Men's Christian Association or a breach of that duty in its "selection, employ or training."
Consequently, the defendant Waterbury Young Men's Christian Association is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
___________________, J. DUBAY CT Page 16554