Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Coletti v. Bridgeport

103 Conn. 117 (Conn. 1925)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Coletti v. Bridgeport

5 Citing cases

  1. Agriesto v. Fairfield

    130 Conn. 410 (Conn. 1943)   Cited 12 times
    In Agriesto v. Fairfield, 130 Conn. 410, 35 A.2d 15 (1943), the Connecticut Supreme Court was confronted with a factual situation very similar to the one here.

    The construction and maintenance of highways is a governmental act, and only to the extent provided by statute can a municipality as agent of the state be held liable to a private individual injured by a failure to properly fulfill this duty. Bartram v. Sharon, supra, 692; Belhumuer v. Bristol, 121 Conn. 475, 477, 185 A. 421; Coletti v. Bridgeport, 103 Conn. 117, 119, 130 A. 175; Lavigne v. New Haven, 75 Conn. 693, 696, 55 A. 569. The plaintiff's sole right of recovery is for injuries caused "by means of a defective road." General Statutes, 1420. Liability depends upon the existence of a defect, not the underlying causes which produced it. Bartram v. Sharon, supra, 694; Seidel v. Woodbury, 81 Conn. 65, 66, 70 A. 58. No liability arises "unless and until the highway has been rendered defective.

  2. Bacon v. Rocky Hill

    11 A.2d 399 (Conn. 1940)   Cited 56 times
    In Bacon v. Rocky Hill, 126 Conn. 402, 11 A.2d 399, we sustained a judgment for the plaintiff to recover for injuries suffered when a car in which she was riding overturned because of crushed stone which had been placed by the defendant town upon the surface of a highway, upon the ground that, in view of all the surrounding circumstances, the stone could reasonably be found to have constituted a nuisance in fact.

    It has been frequently stated in our opinions that the only liability which rests upon a municipality for injuries due to defects in highways is that created by the statute. Lavigne v. New Haven, 75 Conn. 693, 696, 55 A. 569; Udkin v. New Haven, 80 Conn. 291, 296, 68 A. 253; Dyer v. Danbury, 85 Conn. 128, 81 A. 958; Coletti v. Bridgeport, 103 Conn. 117, 119, 130 A. 175; Riccio v. Plainville, 106 Conn. 61, 63, 136 A. 872; Belhumuer v. Bristol, 121 Conn. 475, 477, 185 A. 421; Roth v. MacDonald, 124 Conn. 461, 463, 200 A. 725. In all the cases where this statement has been made, the situations before the court involved conditions in highways which were not created by the municipality, but the court was considering liability based upon the failure of the municipality to remedy the defect.

  3. Belhumuer v. Bristol

    185 A. 421 (Conn. 1936)   Cited 18 times
    In Belhumuer v. Bristol, 121 Conn. 475, 185 A. 421, we said (p. 478) that "for the convenience of the public, the statutes make provision by which the highway commissioner may still permit persons... to use the highway, without liability being incurred for injuries due to defects in it" and (p. 479) that "the risk which traveler using a highway closed by the commissioner under the statute assumes is the risk of injury due to defect in the highway, for which he would ordinarily be entitled to recover damages."

    It is settled law in Connecticut that the State or a municipality charged with the maintenance of highways is not liable for injuries caused by defects therein except as provided by statute. Coletti v. Bridgeport, 103 Conn. 117, 119, 130 A. 175; Lavigne v. New Haven, 75 Conn. 693, 696, 55 A. 569. General Statutes, 1481, provides for a special action to recover damages for injuries sustained on state highways. General Statutes, 1513, provides: "CLOSING HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES. The highway commissioner may close or restrict traffic over any section of any trunk line or state aid highway or bridge for the purpose of construction, reconstruction or repair by posting notices at each end of such section of highway or at each end of such bridge, and any person using such highway when such notices are so posted shall do so at their own risk. Any person who shall, without a permit from the highway commissioner, close any trunk line highway or bridge, or any state aid highway or bridge, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars."

  4. Emhoff v. Stafford

    2005 Ct. Sup. 5400 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

    As defendants note, the case law clearly supports the proposition that Section 13a-149 provides the exclusive remedy in cases such as this one and that there can be no town liability for a roadway defect when the duty to repair belonged to some other entity. See, e.g., Colletti v. City of Bridgeport, 103 Conn. 117, 130 A. 175, 176 (1925) ("The duty of the town ends where the duty of maintenance in sufficient repair belongs to any particular person or persons in any particular case, and the liability for penalty extends only to `the town, or person which ought to secure, and keep in sufficient repair such ways.'"); Lavigne v. New Haven, 75 Conn. 693, 696, 55 A. 569 (1903). The legislative history cited by defendants also supports the argument that Public Act 86-338 (now Section 52-557n) purposefully retained Section 13a-149.

  5. DeCapua v. City of New Haven

    5 Conn. Supp. 193 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1937)

    Section 1411 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, imposes the duty of repairing highways and bridges on the municipality only when such duty shall not belong to some particular person. It is clear therefore, that the obligation to keep the highway in repair at the place where the plaintiff was injured was on the Railroad Company and not on the City of New Haven. Coletti vs. Bridgeport, 103 Conn. 117. Inasmuch as Section 1420 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, authorizes actions for damages caused by a defective road or bridge only against "the party bound to keep it in repair" and inasmuch as there is no common-law liability on a municipality for such damages, it is clear that this plaintiff has no cause of action against the City of New Haven.