DocketNumber: No. CV00-050 28 04
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 2576
Judges: SWORDS, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/15/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
In count two, the plaintiff alleges the following relevant facts. On May 12, 1999, the plaintiff was walking along a public sidewalk adjacent to 143 Meadow Street, Bristol, Connecticut (the property), when she fell and sustained personal injuries due to the dangerous and defective condition of the sidewalk. (See Complaint, June 12, 2000, count two, ¶ 4). At all relevant times, Tata owned the abutting property and had a duty to keep and maintain the adjacent public sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition pursuant to §
According to the plaintiff, at the time of the fall and for a long time prior thereto, an unsafe and dangerous condition existed "in that one of CT Page 2577 the cement slabs of the sidewalk had a fissure of one and one-half inches causing the concrete slab to be above the other concrete slabs." (Complaint, count two, ¶ 5.) The plaintiff maintains that Tata, "in the exercise of reasonable care and inspection, knew or should have had notice and knowledge of this condition of the sidewalk at this place, but wholly failed and neglected to remedy this unsafe condition." (Complaint, count two, ¶ 6.) The plaintiff alleges that her injuries and damages were caused by Tata's negligence in the that: (1) the area was uneven, of varying height, and in a state of disrepair so that it rendered pedestrian traffic hazardous and dangerous; (2) the sidewalk was not reasonably safe for the uses and purposes intended; (3) Tata allowed and permitted the sidewalk at this point to become uneven, hazardous and defective and continued to maintain it in this condition; (4) Tata failed to repair this dangerous condition and failed to place barriers, or otherwise warn the public, Including the plaintiff, of the dangerous and hazardous condition; and (5) Tata failed and neglected to make proper and reasonable inspections of the sidewalk. (Complaint, count two, ¶ 7.)
Tata filed a motion for summary judgment dated October 11, 2000, accompanied by a supporting memorandum of law. The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion on November 30, 2000. In response to the objection, Tata filed a reply memorandum on December 11, 2000. The court heard oral argument at short calendar on February 5, 2001, and now issues this memorandum of decision.
"Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Alvarezv. New Haven Register, Inc.,
In his memoranda in support of summary judgment, Tata argues that, absent a statute or ordinance, an abutting landowner is not liable, at common law, for injuries resulting from a defective public sidewalk. Tata further maintains that §
In opposition, the plaintiff argues that summary judgment is premature because a genuine issue of material fact exists with regard to Tata's duty to maintain the sidewalk under the city ordinance and under common law negligence. Specifically, she contends that her allegations involve negligence which is a determination to be made by the trier of fact. CT Page 2578
"The essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are well established: duty; breach of that duty; causation; and actual injury." RKConstructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp.,
"An abutting landowner, in the absence of statute or ordinance, ordinarily is under no duty to keep the public sidewalk in front of his property in a reasonably safe condition for travel." Wilson v. New Haven,
Alternatively, the plaintiff claims that Tata owed a duty to her pursuant to Bristol Code §
"[W]hen a statute creates an exception to a general rule, it is to be construed strictly and its language is not to be extended beyond its evident intent." internal quotation marks omitted. Dreher v. Joseph,
Applying these rules of statutory construction, the court finds that Bristol Code §
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on count two as a matter of law. It is so granted.
BY THE COURT
Patricia A. Swords Judge of the Superior Court