Case Background
A Connecticut jury sided with a property owner in a personal injury lawsuit, concluding a two-year legal battle that began after a delivery driver claimed he was injured on the Defendant’s property. The case stemmed from an incident on May 12, 2021, when Plaintiff Mario Bracero, a resident of Bridgeport, visited a property at 21 Jencks Street in East Hartford, which a business owned by Defendant Peterrill Guthrie controlled. As a business visitor, Bracero was on the driveway to deliver a package when he tripped and fell, suffering injuries. The complaint, which Bracero filed in April 2023, stated that the property owner had a duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition but had failed to do so, leading to his fall.
Cause
Bracero brought a claim of negligence against Peterrill Guthrie, alleging that the company had a duty to keep the premises safe. Bracero’s complaint claimed his injuries were a direct result of Guthrie’s carelessness. The lawsuit detailed the alleged failures, stating that the Defendant had failed to maintain the property's driveway in an orderly manner and had permitted a dangerous and defective condition a pothole to exist. Bracero further claimed that Guthrie had not repaired the pothole despite having either actual or constructive notice of the hazard. He also argued that the company had failed to inspect the premises and, having a duty to warn visitors of any dangers, had not done so.
Injury
Following the fall, Bracero claimed he suffered significant injuries. His complaint described how he had endured substantial pain and suffering, loss of sleep, and continual discomfort. These injuries, he contended, had greatly impaired and diminished his daily activities and leisure pursuits. Bracero also reported that he had lost income as a result of his injuries and expected that the financial hardship would continue into the future.
Damages Sought
Bracero sought monetary relief from the Court to compensate him for his injuries and losses. While the specific amount of damages was not detailed in the verdict, his initial complaint requested that the Court award him a sum that would adequately cover his medical bills, lost wages, and the pain and suffering he endured. He also sought any other relief the Court deemed appropriate.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Mario Bracero
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Ryan Veilleux
· Experts for Plaintiff: Joseph Marini | Augusto Cabrera | Jhasson V. Brooks | Allen P. Schlein | Joseph H. Antonico | Jason S. Teitelbaum | David S. Caminear | Joseph A. Gagliardi | Douglas Fisher
Defendant(s): Peterrill Guthrie
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Michael R. Oleyer
Claims
Bracero’s counsel argued that the property owner, Peterrill Guthrie, was negligent in its maintenance of the premises. They insisted that the presence of a pothole on a driveway used by visitors created an unsafe condition, which the Defendant had a responsibility to address. By failing to fix the hazard or at least provide a warning, Guthrie directly caused Bracero’s fall and subsequent injuries.
Defense
In a responsive pleading, the Defendant denied the allegations of negligence. Peterrill Guthrie's counsel filed a special defense, directly placing the blame on Bracero. They argued that any injuries Bracero sustained were a direct result of his own negligence. The defense claimed that Bracero had failed to watch where he was stepping, had not exercised the care a reasonable person would under the circumstances, and had failed to avoid a condition he should have seen. Essentially, the defense’s argument maintained that Bracero’s own inattention, not any action or inaction by the property owner, was the sole cause of his fall.
Jury Verdict
After a period of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict that brought the case to a close. On August 29, 2025, in the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Hartford, the jury delivered a verdict in favor of the Defendant, Peterrill Guthrie, and against the Plaintiff, Mario Bracero. The jury’s decision signaled that they did not find the property owner responsible for the Plaintiff’s fall. The final judgment confirmed the jury’s findings, and the Court accepted and recorded the verdict, concluding the proceedings in favor of the Defendant. This verdict fully absolved Peterrill Guthrie of liability and denied Mario Bracero's claims for damages.
