Spallone, J.
During the early morning hours of July 5,1982, an apartment building owned by the plaintiff and located in the city of Waterbury was destroyed by a fire in which fourteen people died. At the request [317]*317of the mayor of Waterbury, the defendant city arranged for the demolition of what remained of the building and the clearing of the site. This involved the retrieval of bodies and the sifting of the rubble for remains.
When the task was completed, the defendant, pursuant to General Statutes § 49-73b,1 filed a lien in the amount of $35,421.54 on real estate owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied to the Superior Court to discharge or reduce the lien. After a hearing, the trial court found that all of the expenses were properly liena[318]*318ble except for $3732.40 in overtime pay for police department personnel engaged in investigating whether the fire started as a result of criminal activity. The court denied the application to discharge, but ordered that the amount of the lien be reduced to $31,689.14.2
The plaintiff has appealed from the trial court’s action upon its application to discharge or reduce the lien. It claims that the court erred (1) in finding that the expenses were lienable under General Statutes § 49-73b, (2) in finding that the mayor of the city of Waterbury acted lawfully when he authorized the demolition of the property, and (3) by permitting an arson investigator to testify as an expert regarding whether the building was unsafe and should be demolished. We can find no error as to the plaintiff’s second and third claims of error. As to its first claim of error, we disagree, in part, with the trial court’s conclusion.
The facts as found by the trial court are substantially as follows. Detective Martin Eagan, of the office of the fire marshall of the city of Waterbury, was called to the scene of the fire at 2:30 a.m. on July 5, 1982. He found that the roof of the plaintiff’s building had collapsed and that much of its interior had caved into the ceiling of the first floor apartments. The building was composed mainly of apartment units. Early reports indicated that at least a dozen persons were missing. It was ultimately determined that fourteen persons lost their lives as a consequence of the fire.
Eagan, who in the course of his career had investigated approximately 500 fires, determined about dawn that what remained of the building was a haz[319]*319ard and unsafe to rescue workers and the public. He recommended to the mayor of the city, who had also arrived on the scene, that demolition be commenced at once. The mayor, by authority vested in him under the defendant’s charter, invoked emergency powers and engaged a private construction company, O & G Construction Company (O & G), to demolish the structure and clear the site of debris in order to facilitate the rescue of possible survivors or the retrieval of bodies. Police department personnel were called to secure the property and to control nearby traffic.
0 & G was required to remain on the scene for two weeks. The retrieval of bodies from the ruins was a time consuming operation which required sifting each bucket of rubble before it could be hauled from the site. Absent the need to recover the bodies, the demolition and clearing of the property would have taken three or four days at the most. 0 & G submitted a bill for $19,690.60; the rental of city equipment, which was also utilized in the operation, came to $5778.85; and charges for police and detective services amounted to $6219.69. As noted, the trial court excluded from the lien the amount of $3732.40 which was expended for detective services used in investigating the possibility of criminal activity as the cause of the fire.
I
Considering the plaintiff’s claims of error in reverse order, we hold that as to its third claim of error, the court was correct in admitting the challenged testimony. The testimony in question was that of Eagan, who was called by the plaintiff to testify regarding the condition of the building.
The plaintiff contends that Eagan had no particular knowledge or experience which caused his opinion as to whether it was necessary to demolish the building to be of any aid to the court. It thus argues that the [320]*320trial court abused its discretion in admitting Eagan’s testimony because he was not qualified as an expert witness. We disagree.
The trial court has broad discretion to determine the qualifications of expert witnesses. Its decision in this regard “will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion or there was a clear error involving a misconception of the law.” McKiernan v. Caldor, Inc., 183 Conn. 164, 168, 438 A.2d 865 (1981); Spoto v. Hayward Mfg. Co., 2 Conn. App. 663, 670, 482 A.2d 91 (1984). After it has been determined by the trial court that the witness is reasonably qualified to testify as an expert, the objection goes only to the weight accorded such testimony, not to its admissibility. McKiernan v. Caldor, Inc., supra; Loewenberg v. Tiger Lee Construction Co., 1 Conn. App. 303, 307, 471 A.2d 665 (1984). “The question of whether a sufficient foundation was laid is a factual question for the court. ‘[WJhere the admissibility of evidence depends upon a preliminary question of fact, to be determined by the court, its decision is not to be reversed unless there is clear and manifest error.’ Engelke v. Wheatley, 148 Conn. 398, 411, 171 A.2d 402 (1961).” Spoto v. Hayward Mfg. Co., supra, 670. Guided by those standards, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its broad discretion, or committed clear error misconceiving the law, in admitting Eagan’s testimony.
II
The plaintiff’s second claim of error is that the court erred in finding that the mayor was acting lawfully when he authorized the demolition of the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff argues that the expenses incurred thereby were not properly lienable.
There is no merit to this claim. Section 2102 (a), Division 2 of the Waterbury city charter provides: “The Mayor shall have power: (a) To assume the entire con[321]*321trol and direction of the police and fire forces of the city, or either of them, for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) days, at his discretion, in case of emergency, and to exercise all of the powers conferred upon the police and fire departments in relation thereto.” Additionally, Section 2-37.2 of the city code, entitled “Powers and duties of Mayor,” provides: “In the event of a disaster emergency the Mayor shall assume full command of all local government functions and facilities and personnel. All available local resources shall be brought to bear on the emergency existing in an effort to protect and preserve human life and property of the community to the greatest extent possible.
“The Mayor shall be limited only by the Governor of the State of Connecticut in state declared emergencies or the President of the United States of America in a declared national emergency.”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Spallone, J.
During the early morning hours of July 5,1982, an apartment building owned by the plaintiff and located in the city of Waterbury was destroyed by a fire in which fourteen people died. At the request [317]*317of the mayor of Waterbury, the defendant city arranged for the demolition of what remained of the building and the clearing of the site. This involved the retrieval of bodies and the sifting of the rubble for remains.
When the task was completed, the defendant, pursuant to General Statutes § 49-73b,1 filed a lien in the amount of $35,421.54 on real estate owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied to the Superior Court to discharge or reduce the lien. After a hearing, the trial court found that all of the expenses were properly liena[318]*318ble except for $3732.40 in overtime pay for police department personnel engaged in investigating whether the fire started as a result of criminal activity. The court denied the application to discharge, but ordered that the amount of the lien be reduced to $31,689.14.2
The plaintiff has appealed from the trial court’s action upon its application to discharge or reduce the lien. It claims that the court erred (1) in finding that the expenses were lienable under General Statutes § 49-73b, (2) in finding that the mayor of the city of Waterbury acted lawfully when he authorized the demolition of the property, and (3) by permitting an arson investigator to testify as an expert regarding whether the building was unsafe and should be demolished. We can find no error as to the plaintiff’s second and third claims of error. As to its first claim of error, we disagree, in part, with the trial court’s conclusion.
The facts as found by the trial court are substantially as follows. Detective Martin Eagan, of the office of the fire marshall of the city of Waterbury, was called to the scene of the fire at 2:30 a.m. on July 5, 1982. He found that the roof of the plaintiff’s building had collapsed and that much of its interior had caved into the ceiling of the first floor apartments. The building was composed mainly of apartment units. Early reports indicated that at least a dozen persons were missing. It was ultimately determined that fourteen persons lost their lives as a consequence of the fire.
Eagan, who in the course of his career had investigated approximately 500 fires, determined about dawn that what remained of the building was a haz[319]*319ard and unsafe to rescue workers and the public. He recommended to the mayor of the city, who had also arrived on the scene, that demolition be commenced at once. The mayor, by authority vested in him under the defendant’s charter, invoked emergency powers and engaged a private construction company, O & G Construction Company (O & G), to demolish the structure and clear the site of debris in order to facilitate the rescue of possible survivors or the retrieval of bodies. Police department personnel were called to secure the property and to control nearby traffic.
0 & G was required to remain on the scene for two weeks. The retrieval of bodies from the ruins was a time consuming operation which required sifting each bucket of rubble before it could be hauled from the site. Absent the need to recover the bodies, the demolition and clearing of the property would have taken three or four days at the most. 0 & G submitted a bill for $19,690.60; the rental of city equipment, which was also utilized in the operation, came to $5778.85; and charges for police and detective services amounted to $6219.69. As noted, the trial court excluded from the lien the amount of $3732.40 which was expended for detective services used in investigating the possibility of criminal activity as the cause of the fire.
I
Considering the plaintiff’s claims of error in reverse order, we hold that as to its third claim of error, the court was correct in admitting the challenged testimony. The testimony in question was that of Eagan, who was called by the plaintiff to testify regarding the condition of the building.
The plaintiff contends that Eagan had no particular knowledge or experience which caused his opinion as to whether it was necessary to demolish the building to be of any aid to the court. It thus argues that the [320]*320trial court abused its discretion in admitting Eagan’s testimony because he was not qualified as an expert witness. We disagree.
The trial court has broad discretion to determine the qualifications of expert witnesses. Its decision in this regard “will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion or there was a clear error involving a misconception of the law.” McKiernan v. Caldor, Inc., 183 Conn. 164, 168, 438 A.2d 865 (1981); Spoto v. Hayward Mfg. Co., 2 Conn. App. 663, 670, 482 A.2d 91 (1984). After it has been determined by the trial court that the witness is reasonably qualified to testify as an expert, the objection goes only to the weight accorded such testimony, not to its admissibility. McKiernan v. Caldor, Inc., supra; Loewenberg v. Tiger Lee Construction Co., 1 Conn. App. 303, 307, 471 A.2d 665 (1984). “The question of whether a sufficient foundation was laid is a factual question for the court. ‘[WJhere the admissibility of evidence depends upon a preliminary question of fact, to be determined by the court, its decision is not to be reversed unless there is clear and manifest error.’ Engelke v. Wheatley, 148 Conn. 398, 411, 171 A.2d 402 (1961).” Spoto v. Hayward Mfg. Co., supra, 670. Guided by those standards, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its broad discretion, or committed clear error misconceiving the law, in admitting Eagan’s testimony.
II
The plaintiff’s second claim of error is that the court erred in finding that the mayor was acting lawfully when he authorized the demolition of the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff argues that the expenses incurred thereby were not properly lienable.
There is no merit to this claim. Section 2102 (a), Division 2 of the Waterbury city charter provides: “The Mayor shall have power: (a) To assume the entire con[321]*321trol and direction of the police and fire forces of the city, or either of them, for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) days, at his discretion, in case of emergency, and to exercise all of the powers conferred upon the police and fire departments in relation thereto.” Additionally, Section 2-37.2 of the city code, entitled “Powers and duties of Mayor,” provides: “In the event of a disaster emergency the Mayor shall assume full command of all local government functions and facilities and personnel. All available local resources shall be brought to bear on the emergency existing in an effort to protect and preserve human life and property of the community to the greatest extent possible.
“The Mayor shall be limited only by the Governor of the State of Connecticut in state declared emergencies or the President of the United States of America in a declared national emergency.”
By virtue of both of those sections, the mayor was authorized to assume full command of the situation that developed at the scene of the fire and to take all action necessary to protect and preserve human life and property.
Given this broad grant of power, there is nothing in the record that would justify an intrusion by this court, with the benefit of hindsight, into the factual findings made by the trial court with regard to the exercise of these emergency powers. The defendant’s charter mandates that, in the event of a “disaster emergency,” the mayor shall take command of the situation. Whether the appropriate conditions for the exercise of this power existed at the time was a question of fact, as is the question of whether the mayor properly executed those emergency powers under the circumstances. The findings of the trial court are amply supported by the evidence, and we are precluded from questioning them. [322]*322Appliances, Inc. v. Yost, 186 Conn. 673, 676-77, 443 A.2d 486 (1982); Connecticut National Bank v. Nagy, 2 Conn. App. 448, 449, 479 A.2d 1224 (1984).
Ill
The plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in failing to discharge the lien is also without merit. General Statutes § 49-73b (a) provides that “[a]ny municipality which has incurred expenses for the inspection, repair, demolition, removal or other disposition of any real estate damaged by fire in order to secure such real estate or to make it safe shall have the right to recover such expenses from the owner of the real estate for which such expenses were incurred.” The trial court found that the language used in that statute is unambiguous and concluded that under the plain meaning of the words used therein, the defendant was entitled to reimbursement of all expenses except those incurred by detectives in investigating the cause of the fire.
While we find no error in the court’s refusal to discharge the lien, we do find error in its conclusion as to the extent of the plaintiff’s liability. In brief, we do not believe that the lien permitted by General Statutes § 49-73b encompasses the recovery of expenses incurred through the retrieval of dead bodies from the rubble.
The lien which the statute imposes requires a landowner to shoulder the cost of actions taken to secure real estate which a municipality, in the first instance, performs. The lienable expenses are, in logic, those which are necessary to render safe fire-damaged real estate which poses a threat to public safety. That these expenses should be recoverable from the owner flows naturally from the duty which every property owner bears to maintain his property in such a way as will not occasion unnecessary damage or annoyance to [323]*323others. Maykut v. Plasko, 170 Conn. 310, 314, 365 A.2d 1114 (1976). If a municipality were not reimbursed for these expenses, the owner would be unjustly enriched.
The distinction between those expenses for which a municipality is entitled to restitution under General Statutes § 49-73b and those which the municipality must bear was recognized by the trial court when it excluded the cost of the criminal investigation from the total amount of the lien. The court, however, did not pursue this distinction to its logical conclusion. The sifting of rubble to retrieve the dead bodies bore a close relation to the investigation. That this activity exceeded the scope of a private property owner’s duty is evident from our statutes which pertain to the investigation of deaths which occur under suspicious circumstances. General Statutes (Rev. to 1981) §§ 19-530 and 19-5313 [324]*324set forth an array of governmental functions which are not capable of being performed by private citizens. Dead bodies and related evidence must be made available to the office of the chief medical examiner for investigation and post mortem examination where the deaths occur under suspicious circumstances. General Statutes (Rev. to 1981) §§ 19-530, 19-531. In cases of accidental death, the cause of which is obscure, [325]*325“the scene of the event shall not be disturbed until authorized by the chief medical examiner, the deputy chief medical examiner, an associate medical examiner or an authorized assistant medical examiner.” Such authorized examiners “shall view and take charge of the body without delay.” General Statutes (Rev. to 1981) § 19-531 (b). General Statutes (Rev. to 1981) § 19-531 (d), in fact, provides for the imposition of criminal sanctions for the failure to comply with the provisions of that section.
We hold that only the expenses incurred by the defendant in rendering the property safe and secure were properly reimbursable under General Statutes § 49-73b. Our interpretation is consistent with the plain words of the statute. The expenses to be reimbursed relate to the “inspection, repair, demolition, removal or other disposition of any real estate” and no words in the statute refer to expenses unrelated to the securing or safety of the real estate. The trial court should have limited its application of § 49-73b to the functions necessary to render the premises safe so that the retrieval of the bodies could begin.
[326]*326There is error in part, the judgment is affirmed except with regard to the amount of the lien, and the case is remanded for further proceedings limited to that issue.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.