DocketNumber: File 64243
Citation Numbers: 12 Conn. Super. Ct. 441, 12 Conn. Supp. 441, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 37
Judges: Munger
Filed Date: 3/31/1944
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/3/2024
In my opinion the demurrer does not take into consideration the allegations of paragraph 2, which are as follows: "On said day, and for a long time prior thereto, the defendant allowed large numbers of children to come on said premises, where it maintained a short rope hanging from the limb of a large tree, and allowed said children to climb the tree and swing on said rope, knowing full well that such activities might well cause injuries to said children."
There is here an explicit allegation of actual knowledge on the part of the defendant of the condition on the premises which might cause injuries to the children and the allegations of negligence which follow are in proper form.
In an action of this kind our court has held that the root of liability where the suit is one for negligence is to be found in the "reasonable anticipation of harm." Botticelli vs. Winters,
I do not see why the complaint does not set forth a cause *Page 442
of action based upon the authority of Wolfe vs. Rehbein,
The allegations of the complaint sufficiently come within the conditions necessary to establish liability as stated in the opinion in this case.
I think there must be a trial because the negligence of the defendant cannot be determined until all the facts are known which affect the character of the claimed acts of negligence. The defendant may or may not be liable. The nature of the rope used as a swing, the danger obviously or otherwise attached to such use and the knowledge of the defendant must be inquired into before the court can say whether there is liability.
I think the demurrer must be overruled.