Bunten, Admx. v. Slavin

Connecticut Superior Court

Bunten, Admx. v. Slavin

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 328, 7 Conn. Supp. 328, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 103

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 19, 1939

DocketFile 57161

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 328 (Bunten, Admx. v. Slavin) 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

Bunten, Admx. v. Slavin, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 328, 7 Conn. Supp. 328, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 103 (Colo. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

DICKENSON, J.

Under the admissions of the demurrer it appears that the plaintiff’s decedent was committed to the county jail in the custody of the defendant sheriff; that while there-he was mentally ill and unable to take care of himself as was known, or should have been known to the defendant; and’ that *329 notwithstanding this he was placed in a cell without attendance, set fire to his mattress on February 12, 1937, and received burns as a result of which he died February 14, 1937.. Further, that his injuries and death were caused by lack of proper attention and inspection, allowing the decedent to have matches, and. failure to furnish adequate medical attention.

The defendant demurs upon the ground that the action is a. death action which must be and is brought under the death-statute (Gen. Stat. [1930] §5987) and that the action was not brought within the limitation of one year fixed by that statute.

In answer to this the plaintiff argues that the action is brought under section 2019 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, which provides that: “If any jailer shall do any wrong’ or injury to a prisoner in his custody, he shall pay treble dam' ages to him. ...” and be subject to fine; and that no limitation is fixed by this statute as to time of commencing suit.

Section 2019 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, is-patently a penal statute. In addition to punitive damages it fixes a criminal penalty for its violation, and hence suit on it is-barred by the last clause of section 6030 of the General Stat' ute, Revision of 1930.

Incidentally, a suit on it is limited by section 6014 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, as to time of' commencement.

Presumably, then, as the defense argues, the action comes under section 5987, for it is based upon injuries arising out of alleged wrongful or negligent conduct of the defendant result' ing in death, and “falls within §5987.” Porpora vs. New Haven, 122 Conn. 80.

That a demurrer is a proper method of attack in such a case-seems established by Radezky vs. Sargent & Co., 77 Conn. 110.

The demurrer is sustained on all grounds.

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

DICKENSON, J.

Under the admissions of the demurrer it appears that the plaintiff’s decedent was committed to the county jail in the custody of the defendant sheriff; that while there-he was mentally ill and unable to take care of himself as was known, or should have been known to the defendant; and’ that *329 notwithstanding this he was placed in a cell without attendance, set fire to his mattress on February 12, 1937, and received burns as a result of which he died February 14, 1937.. Further, that his injuries and death were caused by lack of proper attention and inspection, allowing the decedent to have matches, and. failure to furnish adequate medical attention.

The defendant demurs upon the ground that the action is a. death action which must be and is brought under the death-statute (Gen. Stat. [1930] §5987) and that the action was not brought within the limitation of one year fixed by that statute.

In answer to this the plaintiff argues that the action is brought under section 2019 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, which provides that: “If any jailer shall do any wrong’ or injury to a prisoner in his custody, he shall pay treble dam' ages to him. ...” and be subject to fine; and that no limitation is fixed by this statute as to time of commencing suit.

Section 2019 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, is-patently a penal statute. In addition to punitive damages it fixes a criminal penalty for its violation, and hence suit on it is-barred by the last clause of section 6030 of the General Stat' ute, Revision of 1930.

Incidentally, a suit on it is limited by section 6014 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, as to time of' commencement.

Presumably, then, as the defense argues, the action comes under section 5987, for it is based upon injuries arising out of alleged wrongful or negligent conduct of the defendant result' ing in death, and “falls within §5987.” Porpora vs. New Haven, 122 Conn. 80.

That a demurrer is a proper method of attack in such a case-seems established by Radezky vs. Sargent & Co., 77 Conn. 110.

The demurrer is sustained on all grounds.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 328, 7 Conn. Supp. 328, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bunten-admx-v-slavin-connsuperct-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack