DocketNumber: File No. 136850
Citation Numbers: 318 A.2d 804, 31 Conn. Super. Ct. 1, 31 Conn. Supp. 1
Judges: HULL, J.
Filed Date: 4/4/1974
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The named defendant was the lessee of the Temple Street garage in New Haven owned by the defendant city of New Haven. The plaintiff was a parking customer in the garage and claimed injuries caused by certain basic structural and design defects in a pedestrian area of the garage as set forth in the plaintiff's complaint. The first count against the defendants is based on negligence, and the second count is based on nuisance, reading in part: "The conduct of the defendants was such as to create a condition, the natural tendency of which was to create danger or inflict injury to persons legally on said premises, and such conditions constituted a nuisance."
The defendant lessee demurred as follows: "It does not appear, nor is it alleged that the plaintiff was injured in relation to a right she enjoyed by *Page 2 reason of her ownership of an interest in land, and there can be no cause of action for public nuisance against this defendant under the circumstances alleged in the Complaint."
There are no allegations in the complaint, nor indeed could there be any under the circumstances of this case, which would sustain a claim to a public nuisance. The brief of the plaintiff does not claim a public nuisance and apparently no such claim is made. Therefore, insofar as a public nuisance is concerned, the demurrer must be sustained.
The plaintiff, who did not allege whether the claimed nuisance was a public or a private nuisance, has relied in her brief on the existence of a private nuisance.
The settled law of this aspect of the demurrer is cited to one extent or another in both briefs. It controls the decision of this demurrer as set forth in Webel v. Yale University,
In accordance with the Webel case, public nuisance would be inapplicable even if alleged or claimed by *Page 3
the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, claims in her brief that a customer in a parking garage has an interest in land which would justify a claim of private nuisance. The plaintiff claims that she is a lessee of garage space and cites Jubb v. Maslanka,
It is the court's opinion that the plaintiff's claim, though ingenious, is farfetched and that the analogy to the Jubb case is stretched beyond logical persuasion. The court holds that a customer in a public parking garage under the circumstances alleged in the complaint does not have a sufficient "interest in land" to sustain a claim of private nuisance. The court adopts the view of Arachy v. Schopen,
For the reasons stated, the demurrer of the defendant International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation to the second count of the complaint is sustained.
Mazer v. Connecticut Light & Power Co. , 147 Conn. 235 ( 1960 )
Bland v. Bregman , 123 Conn. 61 ( 1937 )
Clark v. Pierce Norton Co., Inc. , 131 Conn. 499 ( 1945 )
Salzman v. Harbor Park Associates, No. Cv 92 0125591 S (Dec.... , 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 88 ( 1992 )
Lagaipa v. 25 Van Zant Street Condo., No. Cv 91 0290274s (... , 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2505 ( 1992 )
Laverty v. the Stop Shop Supermarket, No. Cv 95 0554032 (... , 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 8589 ( 1996 )
Flavin v. Nolsen, Inc., No. Cv 95077442 (May 15, 1997) , 19 Conn. L. Rptr. 518 ( 1997 )
Sullivan v. R.D. Scinto, Inc., No. Cv97 0060344s (Oct. 5, ... , 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 11319 ( 1998 )