Vonick v. Candlewood Knolls Community, Inc.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Vonick v. Candlewood Knolls Community, Inc.

547 A.2d 1390, 16 Conn. App. 678, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 409

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedOctober 11, 1988

Docket6130

StatusPublished

This text of 547 A.2d 1390 (Vonick v. Candlewood Knolls Community, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vonick v. Candlewood Knolls Community, Inc., 547 A.2d 1390, 16 Conn. App. 678, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 409 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff sought damages for harm to his property caused by water runoff from a road maintained by the defendant. The trial court overruled the plaintiff’s objections to the report of the attorney trial referee to whom the case was referred, and rendered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff’s appeal [679]*679hinges on whether a finding that the defendant did not own or control a certain eroded asphalt curb in front of the plaintiff’s property was clearly erroneous. We have reviewed the evidence on this issue, as presented to us in the parties’ briefs, and conclude that the finding was not clearly erroneous. Thus, the legal conclusion of the court that the defendant had no duty to maintain the curb was correct.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff sought damages for harm to his property caused by water runoff from a road maintained by the defendant. The trial court overruled the plaintiff’s objections to the report of the attorney trial referee to whom the case was referred, and rendered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff’s appeal [679]*679hinges on whether a finding that the defendant did not own or control a certain eroded asphalt curb in front of the plaintiff’s property was clearly erroneous. We have reviewed the evidence on this issue, as presented to us in the parties’ briefs, and conclude that the finding was not clearly erroneous. Thus, the legal conclusion of the court that the defendant had no duty to maintain the curb was correct.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

547 A.2d 1390, 16 Conn. App. 678, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vonick-v-candlewood-knolls-community-inc-connappct-1988.