Arachy v. Schopen

Connecticut Superior Court

Arachy v. Schopen

158 A.2d 604, 22 Conn. Super. Ct. 20

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 19, 1960

DocketFile No. 118118

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 158 A.2d 604 (Arachy v. Schopen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arachy v. Schopen, 158 A.2d 604, 22 Conn. Super. Ct. 20 (Colo. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff was injured when diving off a diving board in defendant's bathing resort. The second count sounds in nuisance.

The plaintiff obviously was not using the diving board in the exercise of a public right. Dewing v.Old Black Point Assn., 19 Conn. Sup. 230. And there could be no private nuisance, since he was not injured in relation to a right which he enjoyed by *Page 21 reason of his ownership of an interest in land.Webel v. Yale University, 125 Conn. 515, 525. There is no merit to the plaintiff's claim that because he was a licensee he came under the classification of an owner of an interest in land. Bland v. Bregman,123 Conn. 61, 64.

The demurrer to the second count of the complaint is sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Plaintiff was injured when diving off a diving board in defendant's bathing resort. The second count sounds in nuisance.

The plaintiff obviously was not using the diving board in the exercise of a public right. Dewing v.Old Black Point Assn., 19 Conn. Sup. 230. And there could be no private nuisance, since he was not injured in relation to a right which he enjoyed by *Page 21 reason of his ownership of an interest in land.Webel v. Yale University, 125 Conn. 515, 525. There is no merit to the plaintiff's claim that because he was a licensee he came under the classification of an owner of an interest in land. Bland v. Bregman,123 Conn. 61, 64.

The demurrer to the second count of the complaint is sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.2d 604, 22 Conn. Super. Ct. 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arachy-v-schopen-connsuperct-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack