Decapua v. City of New Haven
This text of 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 193 (Decapua v. City of New Haven) 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.
Opinion
The only cause of action stated in the complaint is one for injuries sustained by reason of a claimed defect in the planking on a bridge over the tracks of the defendants, The Trustees of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company.
Section 3675, General Statutes, Revision of 1930, imposes the duty of keeping in repair “the surface of the highway, including the planking or other surface material of the highway upon such structure,” on the Railroad Company.
Section 1411 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, imposes the duty of repairing highways and bridges on the municipality only when such duty shall not belong to some particular person.
It is clear therefore, that the obligation to keep the highway in repair at the place where the plaintiff was injured was on the Railroad Company and not on the City of New Haven.
*194 Coletti vs. Bridgeport, 103 Conn. 117.
Inasmuch as Section 1420 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, authorises actions for damages caused by a defective road or bridge only against “the party bound to keep it in repair” and inasmuch as there is no common-law liability on a municipality for such damages, it is clear that this plaintiff has no cause of action against the City of New Haven.
For the foregoing reasons-, the demurrer is sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 Conn. Super. Ct. 193, 5 Conn. Supp. 193, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decapua-v-city-of-new-haven-connsuperct-1937.