Kriksciun Ppa v. Giudice, No. 29 35 02 (Feb. 8, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Kriksciun Ppa v. Giudice, No. 29 35 02 (Feb. 8, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1489

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 1991

DocketNo. 29 35 02

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1489 (Kriksciun Ppa v. Giudice, No. 29 35 02 (Feb. 8, 1991)) 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

Kriksciun Ppa v. Giudice, No. 29 35 02 (Feb. 8, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1489 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE (128) The defendants move to strike the third and fourth counts of the complaint which seek damages based upon a private nuisance, because the plaintiffs failed to allege that the minor plaintiff was injured in relation to a right which she enjoyed by reason of her ownership of an interest on land. It is alleged that "[o]n December 31, 1987 and for many years prior thereto, the minor plaintiff and other children of tender years routinely participated in snow sledding by traveling down the rear yard of plaintiffs' property toward the direction of and ultimately onto defendants' property . . ." where she was injured as a result of a fence erected by the defendants on their property. CT Page 1490

"A private nuisance exists only when one is injured in relation to a right which he enjoys by reason of his ownership of an interest in land." Webel v. Yale University, 125 Conn. 515,525 (1939). At best¹, the plaintiffs allege that the minor child was a licensee. It is "generally agreed that anyone who has no interest in the property affected, such as a licensee, an employee or a lodger on the premises, cannot maintain an action based on a private nuisance." Prosser Keeton, Torts (5th ed.) 87, p. 621; Conlon v. Farmington, 29 Conn. Sup. 230, 232 (1971).

Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike the third and fourth counts is granted.

ROBERT I. BERDON, JUDGE

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE (128) The defendants move to strike the third and fourth counts of the complaint which seek damages based upon a private nuisance, because the plaintiffs failed to allege that the minor plaintiff was injured in relation to a right which she enjoyed by reason of her ownership of an interest on land. It is alleged that "[o]n December 31, 1987 and for many years prior thereto, the minor plaintiff and other children of tender years routinely participated in snow sledding by traveling down the rear yard of plaintiffs' property toward the direction of and ultimately onto defendants' property . . ." where she was injured as a result of a fence erected by the defendants on their property. CT Page 1490

"A private nuisance exists only when one is injured in relation to a right which he enjoys by reason of his ownership of an interest in land." Webel v. Yale University, 125 Conn. 515,525 (1939). At best¹, the plaintiffs allege that the minor child was a licensee. It is "generally agreed that anyone who has no interest in the property affected, such as a licensee, an employee or a lodger on the premises, cannot maintain an action based on a private nuisance." Prosser Keeton, Torts (5th ed.) 87, p. 621; Conlon v. Farmington, 29 Conn. Sup. 230, 232 (1971).

Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike the third and fourth counts is granted.

ROBERT I. BERDON, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kriksciun-ppa-v-giudice-no-29-35-02-feb-8-1991-connsuperct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack