Rivet v. Northern Greyrock, No. 093887 (May 29, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Rivet v. Northern Greyrock, No. 093887 (May 29, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 4225

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 29, 1991

DocketNo. 093887

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 4225 (Rivet v. Northern Greyrock, No. 093887 (May 29, 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

Rivet v. Northern Greyrock, No. 093887 (May 29, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 4225 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION (re #133) The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant City of Waterbury was the owner, and in control, of the locus of the minor plaintiff's accident and that defendant-Leisring was vested with supervisory authority with respect to the locus as authorized agent of the City.

The recent holding of the Appellate Court in Manning v. Barenz, 24 Conn. App. 592 (1991), within the context of the instant case, is dispositive of the issue raised by the defendants on their motion for summary relief. The court is persuaded that both defendants are immune from liability to the plaintiffs by virtue of the recreational use protection afforded under 52-557g of the General Statutes.

There is no genuine issue as to any material fact with respect to liability, and, accordingly, the said defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the third, fourth and fifth counts of the revised complaint is granted.

GAFFNEY, J.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 (re #133) The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant City of Waterbury was the owner, and in control, of the locus of the minor plaintiff's accident and that defendant-Leisring was vested with supervisory authority with respect to the locus as authorized agent of the City.

The recent holding of the Appellate Court in Manning v. Barenz, 24 Conn. App. 592 (1991), within the context of the instant case, is dispositive of the issue raised by the defendants on their motion for summary relief. The court is persuaded that both defendants are immune from liability to the plaintiffs by virtue of the recreational use protection afforded under 52-557g of the General Statutes.

There is no genuine issue as to any material fact with respect to liability, and, accordingly, the said defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the third, fourth and fifth counts of the revised complaint is granted.

GAFFNEY, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 4225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivet-v-northern-greyrock-no-093887-may-29-1991-connsuperct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack