O'Neil v. Marulli

Connecticut Superior Court

O'Neil v. Marulli

155 A.2d 58, 21 Conn. Super. Ct. 373, 21 Conn. Supp. 373, 1959 Conn. Super. LEXIS 47

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 29, 1959

DocketFile 118105

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 155 A.2d 58 (O'Neil v. Marulli) 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

O'Neil v. Marulli, 155 A.2d 58, 21 Conn. Super. Ct. 373, 21 Conn. Supp. 373, 1959 Conn. Super. LEXIS 47 (Colo. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

FitzGerald, J.

Plaintiff’s complaint is in three counts. The allegations common to all three counts are as follows: On July 5, 1958, the plaintiff was an employee of the defendants and while on their *374 premises in the course of her employment she suffered injuries to the thumb of her right hand when it was caught in a cupboard or cabinet located on the premises. The second count alleges in effect that the condition of the cupboard or cabinet constituted a nuisance. The defendants demur to that count as on file.

A defective condition, to be actionable as a nuisance, must constitute a public or private nuisance to the plaintiff to permit a recovery for personal injuries. Clearly, the subject of the second count is not concerned with a public nuisance. For that Mnd of a nuisance to exist, “the annoyance must be of such a nature as to injure ‘the citizens generally who may be so circumstanced as to come within its influence.’ ” Croughwell v. Chase Brass & Copper Co., 128 Conn. 110, 112. Nor is the subject of the second count concerned with a private nuisance. This is the basis of the interposed demurrer. “A private nuisance exists only where 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; Croughwell case, supra. The situation is different from that appearing in Munz v. Abramson, 18 Conn. Sup. 198, in which the defendant’s demurrer was overruled.

For reasons stated, the defendants’ demurrer to the second count of the complaint is sustained.

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

FitzGerald, J.

Plaintiff’s complaint is in three counts. The allegations common to all three counts are as follows: On July 5, 1958, the plaintiff was an employee of the defendants and while on their *374 premises in the course of her employment she suffered injuries to the thumb of her right hand when it was caught in a cupboard or cabinet located on the premises. The second count alleges in effect that the condition of the cupboard or cabinet constituted a nuisance. The defendants demur to that count as on file.

A defective condition, to be actionable as a nuisance, must constitute a public or private nuisance to the plaintiff to permit a recovery for personal injuries. Clearly, the subject of the second count is not concerned with a public nuisance. For that Mnd of a nuisance to exist, “the annoyance must be of such a nature as to injure ‘the citizens generally who may be so circumstanced as to come within its influence.’ ” Croughwell v. Chase Brass & Copper Co., 128 Conn. 110, 112. Nor is the subject of the second count concerned with a private nuisance. This is the basis of the interposed demurrer. “A private nuisance exists only where 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; Croughwell case, supra. The situation is different from that appearing in Munz v. Abramson, 18 Conn. Sup. 198, in which the defendant’s demurrer was overruled.

For reasons stated, the defendants’ demurrer to the second count of the complaint is sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.2d 58, 21 Conn. Super. Ct. 373, 21 Conn. Supp. 373, 1959 Conn. Super. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneil-v-marulli-connsuperct-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack