DocketNumber: No. 097902
Citation Numbers: 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1359
Judges: BLUE, J.
Filed Date: 2/15/1991
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The plaintiff has sued Dayton; Donald Sullivan, the Superintendent of Streets for the City of Waterbury; and the City itself. The first count of the complaint is directed against Dayton and is not relevant for present purposes. The second count alleges that Sullivan was negligent in that he allowed Perkins Avenue to exist in a dangerous condition, that he failed to order the street closed to vehicular traffic, that he failed to post an officer at the site to direct traffic, that he failed to properly warn motorists of the dangerous condition, and that he failed to inspect the street for safety. The third count claims that the acts of negligence alleged against Sullivan were within the scope of his employment and seeks indemnification pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec.
Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec.
Except as otherwise provided by law, a political subdivision of the state shall be liable for damages to person or property caused by: (A) The negligent acts or omissions of such political subdivision or any employee, officer or agent thereof acting within the scope of his employment or official duties . . .and (C) acts of the political subdivision which constitute the creation or participation in the creation of a nuisance; provided no cause of action shall be maintained for damages resulting from injury to any person or property by means of a defective road or bridge except pursuant to section
13a-149 .
In drafting this statute, the legislature drew a distinction between negligent acts or omissions, on the one hand, and defective roads or bridges, on the other. This distinction is not an altogether helpful one, especially in the context of this case, for a defective condition may be the result of the negligent act or omission of a political subdivision of its agent. It is nevertheless necessary to examine the allegations contained in the complaint to determine their essential character. Since this case comes before the court in the posture of a motion to strike, those allegations must be "construed in a manner most favorable to the pleader." Amodio v. Cunningham,
The accident in question allegedly occurred as a result of construction activities relative to work on a watermain. The city contends that, "The condition claimed to be central here is the placing of directional signs at the construction site." Signs are "part of the physical appurtances of the street," O'Hare v. City of Detroit,
"Where the municipality through its agent or employer acts in the performance of a governmental duty, it has a limited immunity from liability. . .but when the act complained of is ministerial, the municipality is responsible for its negligent execution." Wright v. Brown,
The negligent acts complained of in connection with the construction project here are significantly different from the failure to remove snow and ice held to be a discretionary (and thus governmental) act or the superintendent of streets in Derfall v. Town of West Hartford,
Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to strike must be denied.
Dated at Waterbury this 15th day of February, 1991.
JON C. BLUE Judge of the Superior Court
Stephen v. City and County of Denver , 1983 Colo. LEXIS 486 ( 1983 )
O'HARE v. City of Detroit , 362 Mich. 19 ( 1960 )
Amodio v. Cunningham , 182 Conn. 80 ( 1980 )
Steurer v. Yuhasz , 29 Conn. Super. Ct. 352 ( 1972 )
Derfall v. Town of West Hartford , 25 Conn. Super. Ct. 302 ( 1964 )
Wright v. Brown , 167 Conn. 464 ( 1975 )