DocketNumber: No. CV92-0513389-S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 3894
Judges: CORRADINO, J.
Filed Date: 4/28/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The defendant claims there is no issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hammer v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co.,
The defendant has submitted an affidavit from its property manager and admissions from the cablevision company and construction company that they did not contract with the defendant to do the work on this sidewalk nor did they seek the permission or authority of the defendant to do the work. They also admitted they weren't acting as the defendant's agents nor did they request the hospital provide any supervision over the work site. The construction company sought a permit to work on the site from the City of Hartford, a copy of which was attached to the defendant's brief as an exhibit. The plaintiff has submitted no counter-affidavits or exhibits to contest these claims.
The plaintiff maintains that the defendant can be held liable here whether it is the actual owner of the sidewalk or the owner of property actually abutting the sidewalk. CT Page 3896
1.
To address the last claim first, there is language in Wilson v. New Haven,
"An abutting landowner, in the absence of statute or ordinance, ordinarily is under no duty to keep the public sidewalk in front of property in a reasonably safe condition for travel." (Emphasis added).
Section
But as pointed out in Jankowski v. Bridgeport,
As noted in Wilson v. New Haven,
"The distinction between cases where dangerous conditions have been created by individuals CT Page 3897 and in which they are held liable for the consequences under their common law obligations as creators of a nuisance and those relating to the consequences following neglect of a duty imposed by statute or ordinance to maintain, repair, or clear sidewalks, is manifest and radical . . . Abutting owners have only been held liable for injuries from defective sidewalks where under charter provisions they were not only charged with the duty of keeping sidewalks in repair but also expressly made liable for injuries occasioned by defective condition thereof." (Emphasis added).
The Hartford ordinances contain no such explicit provision so that liability cannot be imposed on the abutting owner and no genuine issue of material fact has been raised as to this issue. There is also no claim here that the defendant created the condition leading to the fall or that the defendant, assuming it was not the owner asserted or maintained control over this sidewalk. Corvo v. Waterbury,
2.
But the plaintiff also seems to argue that the defendant maybe held liable to the plaintiff because it is in fact the owner of this sidewalk and not merely an abutting owner. It is true as the plaintiff points out that in our state property owners "are presumed to own the fee of the land to the center of the highway", Luf v. Southbury,
The evidence to the contrary submitted by the defendant is an affidavit from its property manager, its deed and city maps of the property. There's much to be said for the plaintiff's position on this issue although she submitted no exhibits or affidavits on the question. The deed and maps are somewhat indecipherable and the property manager would not seem to have the qualifications or information to decide the question of who in fact owns the sidewalk.
However, in response to a request for admission as to CT Page 3898 ownership the city did admit that "it possesses a public right of way between the street lines on Retreat Avenue. This public right of way would include the public sidewalk in front of 219 Retreat Avenue." This is the location of the fall.
If in fact there is a presumption that the property owner owns the land to the center of the highway and if in fact a municipality under Section
Based on these principles the affidavits and exhibits submitted by the defendant establish there is no issue of material fact; the plaintiff has not presented any affidavits or exhibits which would present facts presenting a claim against the defendant property owner on either of the theories just mentioned.
The defendant hospital's motion for summary judgment is granted.
Corradino, J. CT Page 3899