Overview:
A premises liability lawsuit filed in 2024 involving the Thomaston Opera House continues to develop, with defense attorneys representing both Landmark Community Theater and the Town of Thomaston arguing for dismissal ahead of a scheduled court date on March 23, 2026.
A premises liability lawsuit involving the Thomaston Opera House is raising a broader legal question that extends far beyond a single Connecticut venue: who is responsible when an injury occurs inside a public building — the property owner or the organization operating it?
As the case moves toward a scheduled court date on March 23, 2026, newly reviewed filings show attorneys for both Landmark Community Theater and the Town of Thomaston disputing liability on key grounds, including control of the premises and whether a specific hazard can be identified.
The outcome of the case could provide insight into how courts evaluate responsibility in situations where ownership and day-to-day operations are split — a structure commonly used by municipalities, nonprofits, and event venues across the United States. Read it below:
A liability lawsuit filed in 2024 against the Thomaston Opera House and the Town of Thomaston is progressing through Connecticut Superior Court, with new filings outlining the defense’s position as the next hearing approaches on March 23, 2026.
The case stems from an incident alleged to have occurred on December 11, 2022, when the plaintiff, identified in filings as Joan, claims she suffered injuries after a fall inside the theater located at 158 Main Street in Thomaston, Connecticut.
Allegations in the Original Complaint
According to the original complaint, Joan alleges she tripped and fell on a covered step inside the theater, resulting in multiple injuries including facial trauma, vision-related issues, and spinal injuries.
The lawsuit claims that the defendants:
- Failed to maintain safe premises
- Did not provide warnings or signage
- Did not properly inspect or repair the area
- Failed to prevent access to the allegedly hazardous condition
The complaint asserts that both Landmark Community Theater (Known locally as the Opera House) and the Town of Thomaston were responsible for the condition of the property at the time of the incident.
Defense Strategy: No Identifiable Defect
Attorney ROBERT JOHN CHOMIAK JR and LAUREN TERESA GRAHAM represent both defendants, including filings submitted under practice name of Gfeller Laurie LLP office located at 977 FARMINGTON AVENUE, Suite 200 West Hartford, CT 06107, has pushed back strongly on the claims.
In a motion for summary judgment, the defense argues that the plaintiff cannot identify the specific defect that caused the fall, which is a key requirement under Connecticut premises liability law.
According to court filings, deposition testimony shows Joan was unable to definitively state what caused her fall, instead using language such as “I don’t know” and “it might have” when describing the incident.
The defense contends that without identifying a specific hazard:
- There is no provable defect
- There is no basis to establish negligence
- There is no evidence the defendants had notice of any dangerous condition
Separate Argument: Town of Thomaston Denies Control
In additional filings, attorneys for the Town of Thomaston argue that the municipality did not possess or control the specific area where the incident occurred, and therefore owed no legal duty of care in this situation. (Lease agreement between Town of Thomaston & Opera House Exhibit A)
Lease agreement reveals Landmark had exclusive control over Thomaston Opera House operations, central to defense strategy
Under Connecticut law, liability for premises-related injuries depends on control of the property, not just ownership. Defense filings state that:
- Landmark Community Theater operated and controlled the premises
- The Town’s role did not extend to day-to-day management of the theater space
As a result, the Town is seeking dismissal of the claims against it through summary judgment.
Discovery Disputes and Compliance Filings
The case has also included procedural motions related to discovery.
Defense attorneys previously filed a motion for order of compliance, seeking additional records related to the plaintiff’s medical condition, including:
- Eye treatment records
- Medical history before and after the incident
- Photographic documentation of alleged injuries
Subsequent filings indicate that the plaintiff later submitted supplemental compliance materials in response to these requests.
What Happens Next
With multiple motions for summary judgment filed, the court may determine whether the case proceeds to trial or is resolved at the pre-trial stage.
The next scheduled court date on March 23, 2026 could be pivotal in determining:
- Whether claims against one or both defendants are dismissed
- Whether the case moves forward toward trial
Editorial Note
This article is based on publicly available court filings. Allegations outlined in the complaint have not been proven in court. All parties are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise through legal proceedings.
Editor’s Note
Presence News reached out to attorney Robert J. Chomiak, Jr. for clarification regarding employment verification of Lauren Teresa Graham, who is listed on court filings as having submitted motions in this case.
As of publication, Lauren Teresa Graham does not appear to be currently listed on the firm’s website, and Presence News was unable to locate publicly available information confirming her current professional status or affiliation.
It is unclear at this time whether Ms. Graham was previously employed by the firm, served in a temporary capacity, or was affiliated in another professional role at the time of the filings.
Presence News will update this article if additional information or clarification is provided.
More at Presence News:
