CT Jury Awards $149k in Restaurant Depot Cart Injury Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
This civil action arose from a premises liability dispute between Ignacio Otranto and the operators of a wholesale warehouse in Waterbury, Connecticut. The Plaintiff, Mr. Otranto, initiated legal proceedings against RD America, LLC, along with related entities JMDH Real Estate of Waterbury, LLC, Jetro Holdings, LLC, and assistant branch manager Jimmy Jean-Baptiste. The conflict centered on the operations at the Restaurant Depot facility located at 3580 East Main Street. This establishment functioned as a "cash and carry" warehouse, a business model where the Defendants provided shopping carts and other equipment for customers to transport bulk goods throughout the store.
The legal framework of the case rested on the duty of care owed by business owners to their invited patrons. Mr. Otranto argued that as the owners and operators of the store, the Defendants maintained exclusive possession and control over the shopping carts provided to the public. Consequently, the lawsuit established that the store management held the responsibility to regularly inspect and maintain this equipment to ensure it remained safe for use. The case officially entered the Court system on January 15, 2024, with a return date set for March of that year, following an incident that occurred on the store's premises on December 31, 2022. The matter progressed through the Superior Court in the Judicial District of Waterbury, ultimately resulting in a jury trial to determine issues of negligence and liability.
Cause
The events leading to this legal action unfolded on December 31, 2022, a day typically reserved for year-end celebrations. On this date, the Plaintiff, Ignacio Otranto, visited the Restaurant Depot store located at 3580 East Main Street in Waterbury, Connecticut. This location operates as a cash and carry warehouse, a facility where customers transport goods using equipment provided by the store.
During his visit, Mr. Otranto utilized a shopping cart provided by the establishment to transport his selected items. While he was lawfully on the premises and engaged in the standard use of the store's equipment, the top shelf of the shopping cart suddenly collapsed. This mechanical failure occurred without warning, creating an immediate and dangerous situation for the patron. The Plaintiff asserted that the cart was owned, possessed, and controlled by the Defendants, who bore the responsibility for its safety and maintenance.
Injury
The collapse of the cart's shelf resulted in significant physical trauma to Mr. Otranto’s right hand, specifically targeting his thumb. The complaint detailed a gruesome series of injuries sustained during the incident. Mr. Otranto suffered a flap laceration to his right thumb, a painful injury that involved the tearing of skin and tissue. The trauma further resulted in a crush injury, which damaged the underlying structure of the digit.
Beyond the immediate external wounds, the Plaintiff experienced traumatic neuropraxia, a condition indicating nerve injury that disrupted the normal function of the thumb. This nerve damage manifested as numbness, which the Plaintiff argued might be permanent. The incident also left a retained foreign body inside the thumb, a complication that necessitated surgical intervention to remove the embedded material. The Plaintiff further reported damage to the nail of the right thumb, along with persistent pain, swelling, and stiffness. Permanent scarring was also listed as a lasting reminder of the injury.
Damages Sought
In his initial filing on January 15, 2024, the Plaintiff sought monetary damages to address the harms he endured. The formal Statement of Amount in Demand specified that the claim exceeded Fifteen Thousand Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.
Mr. Otranto requested compensation for several distinct categories of loss. He sought recovery for the medical expenses he had already incurred for the care and treatment of his injuries, as well as for the costs of likely future medical interventions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff claimed that the injuries had impaired his earning capacity, limiting his ability to work and generate income. The lawsuit also sought damages for the loss of his ability to participate in his usual daily activities and for the mental and physical pain and suffering caused by the traumatic event.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Ignacio Otranto
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Christopher J. Flood
· Plaintiff’s Experts: Ryan A. Naujoks
Defendant(s): RD America, LLC | JMDH Real Estate of Waterbury, LLC | Jetro Holdings, LLC | Jimmy Jean-Baptiste
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Yelena Akim
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims of Negligence
The Plaintiff's legal team constructed their case around the theory of premises liability and negligence. They argued that RD America, LLC, along with the other named Defendants, had an affirmative duty to inspect and maintain the shopping carts provided to invitees. The complaint outlined specific failures by the store's management and staff.
Mr. Otranto's counsel asserted that the Defendants failed to properly maintain and inspect the cart and its shelf, allowing it to deteriorate into a hazardous condition. They argued that the store knew, or certainly should have known, that the shelf was unstable yet took no corrective steps to fix the problem. A core component of their argument was that the Defendants allowed this unstable condition to persist for an unreasonable amount of time, thereby increasing the risk to customers.
Additionally, the Plaintiff contended that there were systemic failures in the store’s operations. The complaint alleged that the Defendants failed to enact or follow adequate procedures to ensure that equipment was stabilized and safe for use. The legal team also pointed to a lack of proper training for employees regarding the inspection and maintenance of the carts. Finally, they argued that the Defendants failed to warn the Plaintiff of the latent danger posed by the unstable shelf.
The Defense Strategy
The defense, represented by Conway Stoughton LLC, filed their Answer on June 20, 2024, largely denying the allegations of negligence. While they admitted certain jurisdictional and operational facts such as RD America, LLC's operation of the Restaurant Depot cash and carry warehouse in Waterbury they firmly rejected the claims of liability.
Regarding the specific accusations of failing to inspect or maintain the carts, the defense consistently stated they had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, effectively leaving the Plaintiff to prove his assertions. This response strategy was applied to nearly every specific allegation of negligence, including the claims about lack of training, failure to warn, and the duration of the hazardous condition.
The defense also addressed the claims against the individual Defendant, Jimmy Jean-Baptiste, the assistant branch manager. While admitting his role at the warehouse, the defense denied all allegations of negligence attributed to him personally. They maintained that the Defendants did not violate their duty of care and were not responsible for the injuries Mr. Otranto sustained.
Jury Verdict
The trial concluded on November 19th, 2025, at the Superior Court in the Judicial District of Waterbury. After hearing the evidence and arguments from both sides, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, Ignacio Otranto, and against the Defendant, RD America, LLC.
The jury's decision was documented on the Plaintiff's Verdict Form, signed by the Jury Foreperson, Czarina Gllette, on November 19, 2025. The verdict was subsequently accepted, ordered, and recorded by Judge Shaban at 3:33 PM on that same day.
The financial award was broken down into two distinct categories reflecting the different types of harm suffered by Mr. Otranto. First, the jury calculated the total economic damages at $9,321.19. This figure likely served to reimburse the Plaintiff for the tangible financial losses incurred, such as medical bills and treatment costs associated with the thumb injury and surgery.
Second, and significantly larger, was the award for noneconomic damages. The jury granted Mr. Otranto $140,000.00 in this category. This portion of the award addressed the intangible impacts of the incident, compensating the Plaintiff for the physical pain, mental suffering, permanent impairment, and the scarring that he had described in his complaint.
When these two figures were combined, the final award to the Plaintiff totaled $149,321.19. This outcome marked a successful conclusion to the litigation for Mr. Otranto, validating his claims that the store's negligence regarding the maintenance of their shopping carts had directly caused his injuries. While a separate verdict form for the Defendant existed in the record, it remained unsigned, confirming that the jury had rejected the defense's arguments in favor of the Plaintiff's account of events.
Court Documents