Skip to main content
W Glen Pierson
Avvo
Pro

W Pierson’s Legal Cases

33 total

  • Unitrin Preferred Mutual Ins. Co. v. Chapman

    Practice Area:
    Car Accidents
    Date:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Outcome:
    Motion to Strike granted in favor of client
    Description:
    In this case, the Court granted a Motion to Strike in favor of my 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. Thereafter, the Court granted a Motion for Judgment in favor of the client, thereby terminating all claims against the client at the pre-trial stage of proceedings.
  • Mesner v. Cheap Auto Rental, LLC

    Practice Area:
    Car Accidents
    Date:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Outcome:
    Motion for Summary Judgment granted
    Description:
    In this action, the Court initially granted our Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s vicarious liability claims against our client, the lessor of a rental vehicle involved in an accident, pursuant to the Graves Amendment to 49 U.S.C. § 30106, which abolishes the vicarious liability of vehicle lessors as a matter of federal law. Following the granting of the Motion to Strike, Plaintiff attempted to circumvent Congress’s abolition of vicarious liability by amending his Complaint to allege direct claims of negligent entrustment against the lessor. We filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, claiming that the allegations of negligent entrustment did not relate back to the claims stated in the original Complaint, and were barred by Connecticut’s two-year statute of limitations applicable to negligence actions. In an important and exhaustive memorandum of decision, the Superior Court agreed that Connecticut’s “relation back” doctrine, which allows certain amended claims to relate back to an original pleading for purposes of calculating a limitations period, did not apply in this case, and that Plaintiff’s amended claims were barred as a matter of law.
  • Camara v. Nanfito Roofing

    Practice Area:
    Slip and Fall Accident
    Date:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Outcome:
    Motion to Strike granted in favor of client
    Description:
    In this action involving a fall at commercial premises, the Court granted our Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s public nuisance count, agreeing with us that under Connecticut law, a business invitee may not maintain an action in public nuisance for injuries allegedly sustained at private business premises.
  • Maldonado v. Greco

    Practice Area:
    Wrongful Death
    Date:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Outcome:
    Motions to Strike/Sumary Judgment granted
    Description:
    In a wrongful death action involving a drunk, minor driver, the Superior Court granted our Motion to Strike all negligence claims against the insured, commercial landlords of the liquor store that sold liquor to the minor prior to the accident, finding that the alleged acts and omissions of the landlords were not the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries, Plaintiffs’ injuries were not foreseeable to landlords, and that the landlords owed no legal duty to Plaintiffs. Following the granting of the Motion to Strike, the Superior Court also granted our Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining claim of agency against the landlords (Dec. 19, 2007), on the grounds that there were no material issues of fact as to the non-existence of an agency relationship and based on the statute of limitations.
  • Anastasia v. Mitsock

    Practice Area:
    Car Accidents
    Date:
    Jun 01, 2007
    Outcome:
    Motion to Strike granted
    Description:
    In an action involving a purportedly intoxicated driver who allegedly caused a collision with Plaintiffs’ vehicle, striking count alleging reckless entrustment of motor vehicle against insured owner, and holding that Connecticut does not recognize common law cause of action for the reckless entrustment of a motor vehicle.
  • Kostyan v. 675 Kings Highway, LLC; Scap, Inc. v. 675 Kings Highway, LLC

    Practice Area:
    Slip and Fall Accident
    Date:
    Sep 05, 2005
    Outcome:
    Motion for Summary Judgment granted
    Description:
    These consolidated cases involved a claimed slip and fall on ice in the parking lot of a commercial premises owned by our client, but leased to a third party. As a result of the fall, Plaintiff claimed serious injuries and extensive lost wages. Medical specials, and the claimed worker’s compensation lien asserted by Plaintiff’s employer, were in excess of $200,000.00. We moved for summary judgment on the grounds that we were not in possession and control of the subject premises pursuant to the terms of the governing lease agreement with the third party, as well as the statute of limitations. The Superior Court granted our motion on both grounds as to both Plaintiff and his employer.
  • Hopkins v. Connecticut Sports Plex, LLC

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Date:
    Jun 09, 2006
    Outcome:
    Motion for Summary Judgment granted
    Description:
    This action involved a claim for personal injuries sustained at our client’s sports facility, as a result of a fight that broke out between Plaintiff and an NBA basketball star (Vin Baker) and members of his entourage. Our client was sued by Plaintiff in negligence, based on a theory of negligent security and the negligent service of alcohol to Mr. Baker and his associates. In an important and lengthy memorandum of decision, the Superior Court granted our motion for summary judgment, agreeing that our client’s alleged acts and omissions were not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries, due to the lack of forseeability of events, and the intervening and intentional conduct of the Baker party. In addition, the court found that there was no proof of negligent service of alcohol on our client’s part.
  • Davis v. Ilama

    Practice Area:
    Car Accidents
    Date:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Outcome:
    Motion to Strike granted
    Description:
    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”.
  • Wielock v. Finlayson

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Date:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Outcome:
    Motion to Strike granted in favor of clients
    Description:
    Wielock involved a claim brought on behalf of a child for injuries suffered as a result of an attack by a German Sheppard dog. Plaintiffs sued both the owners of the dog, and the landlords of the premises where the attack took place. Loughlin FitzGerald represented the landlords, who were sued in negligence for failing to keep the premises free from dangerous conditions, and permitting a dangerous dog to remain on the leased premises. We argued that Plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficient to impose a legal duty on the landlords for injuries inflicted by their tenant’s dog, and that the allegations of the operative complaint were insufficient to impose liability under Connecticut’s dog-bite statute. The court agreed, and struck all claims brought against our clients.
  • Gonzalez v. Sackett

    Practice Area:
    Car Accidents
    Date:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Outcome:
    Motion to Strike granted in favor of client
    Description:
    This case involved a serious car accident that took place on Interstate 84 in Cheshire, Connecticut. Our client was sued by the named Defendant by way of a Third-Party Complaint, alleging common law indemnification against our client, claiming that our client had caused the accident between Plaintiff and Defendant as a result the operation of his vehicle upon the highway. We moved to strike the indemnification claim, arguing that as a matter of law, the Defendant could not prove the necessary element of exclusive control on the part of our client. The Superior Court agreed and struck the claim, holding that as a matter of law, the element of exclusive control could not be proven in the context of a multi-vehicle accident.