Kreidler v. Cecio Bros., Inc.

Connecticut Superior Court

Kreidler v. Cecio Bros., Inc.

117 A.2d 843, 19 Conn. Super. Ct. 477

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 19, 1955

DocketFile No. 63118

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 117 A.2d 843 (Kreidler v. Cecio Bros., Inc.) 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

Kreidler v. Cecio Bros., Inc., 117 A.2d 843, 19 Conn. Super. Ct. 477 (Colo. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

The Connecticut rule is that a right of action against the highway commissioner is maintainable, if at all, only under the statute (General Statutes § 2201; as amended, Cum. Sup. 1953, § 964c) and that no right exists in the domain of an alleged nuisance. Hillen v. Macdonald, 7 Conn. Sup. 95, 96;Harrison Sons Co. v. Fresh Fish Carrier's, Inc.,12 Conn. Sup. 14, 17. The rule that liability of a municipality apart from statute may exist for a nuisance created by a positive act (Bacon v. RockyHill, 126 Conn. 402, 407, to cite but a single case), has never been adopted in Connecticut as against the state or an official thereof.

The case of Hay v. Hill, 137 Conn. 285, cited by the plaintiff in resisting the interposed demurrer, does not advantage him. An examination of the record of that case on appeal discloses that the trial judge did not submit to the jury the second count of the plaintiff's complaint sounding in nuisance against the defendant highway commissioner. A-277 Recs. Briefs 339. The opinion of the Supreme Court therein is confined solely to the liability of the highway commissioner under the statute.

The demurrer of the defendant highway commissioner, one of three defendants, to the seventh count of the complaint directed against him on the ground of alleged nuisance resulting in damage to the plaintiff's property caused by an excavation along a state highway is required to be sustained.

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

The Connecticut rule is that a right of action against the highway commissioner is maintainable, if at all, only under the statute (General Statutes § 2201; as amended, Cum. Sup. 1953, § 964c) and that no right exists in the domain of an alleged nuisance. Hillen v. Macdonald, 7 Conn. Sup. 95, 96;Harrison Sons Co. v. Fresh Fish Carrier's, Inc.,12 Conn. Sup. 14, 17. The rule that liability of a municipality apart from statute may exist for a nuisance created by a positive act (Bacon v. RockyHill, 126 Conn. 402, 407, to cite but a single case), has never been adopted in Connecticut as against the state or an official thereof.

The case of Hay v. Hill, 137 Conn. 285, cited by the plaintiff in resisting the interposed demurrer, does not advantage him. An examination of the record of that case on appeal discloses that the trial judge did not submit to the jury the second count of the plaintiff's complaint sounding in nuisance against the defendant highway commissioner. A-277 Recs. Briefs 339. The opinion of the Supreme Court therein is confined solely to the liability of the highway commissioner under the statute.

The demurrer of the defendant highway commissioner, one of three defendants, to the seventh count of the complaint directed against him on the ground of alleged nuisance resulting in damage to the plaintiff's property caused by an excavation along a state highway is required to be sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.2d 843, 19 Conn. Super. Ct. 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kreidler-v-cecio-bros-inc-connsuperct-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack