Vilar v. City of Waterbury, No. Cv96-0135857s (Feb. 3, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Vilar v. City of Waterbury, No. Cv96-0135857s (Feb. 3, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 1256

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 1999

DocketNo. CV96-0135857S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 1256 (Vilar v. City of Waterbury, No. Cv96-0135857s (Feb. 3, 1999)) 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

Vilar v. City of Waterbury, No. Cv96-0135857s (Feb. 3, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 1256 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT #112 The defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

In Williams v. New Haven, 243 Conn. 763, the court held that a plaintiff cannot maintain an action in common-law negligence against a municipality in the absence of a statute providing for municipal liability. The plaintiffs allege that Connecticut General Statutes § 52-572n provides the basis for their common-law claims. However, the statute was not plead; the plaintiffs did not name any individual municipal officers, agents or employees pursuant to § 7-465 or any other statute that would invoke the municipality's duty to indemnify. See Williamsv. New Haven, supra, 469. Hence there can be no liability absent a statutory provision. There is no material fact as to liability at issue.

The elements of a nuisance claim have not been alleged beyond the conclusory allegation that the defendant's acts created a nuisance. Filisko v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 176 Conn. 33 CT Page 1257 (1978). A variety of legal bars to the maintenance of claims may be raised on a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., BarrettBuilders v. Miller, 215 Conn. 316 (1990) (application of Home Improvement Act); 206 Conn. 495, 500 (1988) and Mingachos v. CBS, Inc. (bar of worker's compensation statute).

___________________________ SANDRA VILARDI LEHENY, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT #112 The defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

In Williams v. New Haven, 243 Conn. 763, the court held that a plaintiff cannot maintain an action in common-law negligence against a municipality in the absence of a statute providing for municipal liability. The plaintiffs allege that Connecticut General Statutes § 52-572n provides the basis for their common-law claims. However, the statute was not plead; the plaintiffs did not name any individual municipal officers, agents or employees pursuant to § 7-465 or any other statute that would invoke the municipality's duty to indemnify. See Williamsv. New Haven, supra, 469. Hence there can be no liability absent a statutory provision. There is no material fact as to liability at issue.

The elements of a nuisance claim have not been alleged beyond the conclusory allegation that the defendant's acts created a nuisance. Filisko v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 176 Conn. 33 CT Page 1257 (1978). A variety of legal bars to the maintenance of claims may be raised on a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., BarrettBuilders v. Miller, 215 Conn. 316 (1990) (application of Home Improvement Act); 206 Conn. 495, 500 (1988) and Mingachos v. CBS, Inc. (bar of worker's compensation statute).

___________________________ SANDRA VILARDI LEHENY, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 1256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vilar-v-city-of-waterbury-no-cv96-0135857s-feb-3-1999-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack