Loesche v. Town of West Haven

Connecticut Superior Court

Loesche v. Town of West Haven

3 Conn. Super. Ct. 135, 3 Conn. Supp. 135, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 142

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 4, 1935

DocketFile #48486

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 3 Conn. Super. Ct. 135 (Loesche v. Town of West 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.

Bluebook

Loesche v. Town of West Haven, 3 Conn. Super. Ct. 135, 3 Conn. Supp. 135, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 142 (Colo. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

DICKENSON, J.

The complaint, served within sixty days and so making notice unnecessary contains the allegations that the plaintiff while walking on the defendant’s roadway which was defective fell into a ditch beside it, the proximate cause of the fall being the defective condition of the highway. What that defective condition was does not appear. The defendant demurs on the ground that there .is no description of the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiff contends she has given a “general description” under the statute and if it is “insufficient by reason of inaccuracy” she still may show, under the statute, that the defendant was not mislead or that she had no intention of misleading it.

In Nicholas vs. Bridgeport, 117 Conn., 398, it is said, (p. 401) “the ‘cause’ of the injury which is required to be stated must be interpreted to mean the defect or defective condition of the highway that brought about the injury.”

Attention is indeed called in that case to Sizer vs. Waterbury, 113 Conn., 145 wherein (p. 157) another case is quoted from to the effect that “the intent of the change, (the amendment relating to a general description) was to emphasize the *136 generality and not the particularity of the description.”

This referred to notice before suit and it is said of such notice that it is not a pleading and is not expected to have the “fullness and clearness” of one.

A notice such as that in the instant case would certainly have been insufficient before the amendment.

Beisiegal vs. Seymour, 58 Conn., 43, 53.

Even when it is remembered that the demurrer admits a defect at this location for all that appears there may have been a dosjen defects of various characters, there may have been depressions or elevations or both and the defendant is still left to guess at the particular condition causing the fall.

The demurrer is sustained on the second ground.

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

DICKENSON, J.

The complaint, served within sixty days and so making notice unnecessary contains the allegations that the plaintiff while walking on the defendant’s roadway which was defective fell into a ditch beside it, the proximate cause of the fall being the defective condition of the highway. What that defective condition was does not appear. The defendant demurs on the ground that there .is no description of the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiff contends she has given a “general description” under the statute and if it is “insufficient by reason of inaccuracy” she still may show, under the statute, that the defendant was not mislead or that she had no intention of misleading it.

In Nicholas vs. Bridgeport, 117 Conn., 398, it is said, (p. 401) “the ‘cause’ of the injury which is required to be stated must be interpreted to mean the defect or defective condition of the highway that brought about the injury.”

Attention is indeed called in that case to Sizer vs. Waterbury, 113 Conn., 145 wherein (p. 157) another case is quoted from to the effect that “the intent of the change, (the amendment relating to a general description) was to emphasize the *136 generality and not the particularity of the description.”

This referred to notice before suit and it is said of such notice that it is not a pleading and is not expected to have the “fullness and clearness” of one.

A notice such as that in the instant case would certainly have been insufficient before the amendment.

Beisiegal vs. Seymour, 58 Conn., 43, 53.

Even when it is remembered that the demurrer admits a defect at this location for all that appears there may have been a dosjen defects of various characters, there may have been depressions or elevations or both and the defendant is still left to guess at the particular condition causing the fall.

The demurrer is sustained on the second ground.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Conn. Super. Ct. 135, 3 Conn. Supp. 135, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loesche-v-town-of-west-haven-connsuperct-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack