Gibb, Admx. v. Martin

Connecticut Superior Court

Gibb, Admx. v. Martin

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 123, 5 Conn. Supp. 123, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 70

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 20, 1937

DocketFile #53012

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 123 (Gibb, Admx. v. Martin) 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

Gibb, Admx. v. Martin, 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 123, 5 Conn. Supp. 123, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 70 (Colo. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

JENNINGS, J.

Plaintiff’s intestate, while lawfully on the land of the defendants, fell into a river and was drowned. His death was caused by the negligence of the defendants, because they maintained a nuisance on their premises and because they failed to safeguard an inherently dangerous condition. The land was open for use by the public in general for a parking space for automobiles. These allegations of the complaint, admitted by the demurrer, make a trial necessary to determine the precise circumstances surrounding the accident.

Norwich vs. Breed, 30 Conn. 535.

Ruoccio vs. United Advertising Company, 98 Conn. 241.

Sedita vs. Steinberg, 105 Conn. 1.

While the general rule is well settled that an owner owes-no duty to a trespasser to keep his premises in safe condition (Wilmot vs. McPadden, 79 Conn. 367, 16 Y.L.J. 356; Pastorello vs. Stone, 89 Conn. 286) it does not appear from the complaint that the plaintiff was a trespasser. Furthermore the cases cited above show that even a trespasser may recover *124 under certain circumstances, particularly where the defect is of such a character as to endanger travelers on the highway.

Mr. Young is advised to conform to local custom in the format of his brief.

The demurrer is overruled.

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

JENNINGS, J.

Plaintiff’s intestate, while lawfully on the land of the defendants, fell into a river and was drowned. His death was caused by the negligence of the defendants, because they maintained a nuisance on their premises and because they failed to safeguard an inherently dangerous condition. The land was open for use by the public in general for a parking space for automobiles. These allegations of the complaint, admitted by the demurrer, make a trial necessary to determine the precise circumstances surrounding the accident.

Norwich vs. Breed, 30 Conn. 535.

Ruoccio vs. United Advertising Company, 98 Conn. 241.

Sedita vs. Steinberg, 105 Conn. 1.

While the general rule is well settled that an owner owes-no duty to a trespasser to keep his premises in safe condition (Wilmot vs. McPadden, 79 Conn. 367, 16 Y.L.J. 356; Pastorello vs. Stone, 89 Conn. 286) it does not appear from the complaint that the plaintiff was a trespasser. Furthermore the cases cited above show that even a trespasser may recover *124 under certain circumstances, particularly where the defect is of such a character as to endanger travelers on the highway.

Mr. Young is advised to conform to local custom in the format of his brief.

The demurrer is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 123, 5 Conn. Supp. 123, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibb-admx-v-martin-connsuperct-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack