The plaintiff's claim, rather, is that the alleged conduct did not constitute governmental acts because it concerned a proprietary, as opposed to a public activity, namely, the operation of a water utility. In support of her claim, the plaintiff relies upon three cases involving negligence actions arising out of a municipality's operation of a water utility: Hourigan v. Norwich, 77 Conn. 358, 59 A. 487 (1904); Richmond v. Norwich, 96 Conn. 582, 115 A. 11 (1921); and Abbot v. Bristol, 167 Conn. 143, 355 A.2d 68 (1974). In each of those cases, this court concluded that the municipal defendants could not avail themselves of immunity because the municipalities engaged in the allegedly tortious actions for the sake of corporate gain rather than for the administration of government.

Unlike the present case, in each of those cases, the allegedly tortious conduct of the municipalities was inextricably linked to the operation of the water utility for corporate gain.Elliott, at 413, citing Hourigan v. Norwich, 77 Conn. 358 (1904); Richmond v. Norwich, 96 Conn. 582 (1921); and Abbott v. Bristol, 167 Conn. 143 (1974). There must be a direct link, then, between the municipal authority and the pecuniary benefit.

In such cases the municipality is in a sense performing a private duty, and although no liability for damages is imposed by statute for negligence in the performance of such duties, the municipality is nevertheless liable for it. Jones v. New Haven, 34 Conn. 1, 14; Hewison v. New Haven, 37 Conn. 475, 483; Hourigan v. Norwich, 77 Conn. 358, 365, 59 A. 487. In the Jones case above cited, as in the present case, a dead limb fell from a tree upon the plaintiff and caused the injury complained of.

Id., 850. In the course of distinguishing between governmental and proprietary acts, the court stated: "This court explained in Hourigan v. Norwich [ 77 Conn. 358, 364, 59 A. 487 (1904)], that when the state performs its governmental function through an agent, `the agent cannot be sued for injuries resulting from a strict performance of the agency. In such case the act is regarded as the act of the [s]tate and not that of the agent, who is the mere instrument of the [s]tate and nothing more. . . .' Similarly, a municipality is the agent of the state `in the exercise of certain governmental powers . . . [and when] the [s]tate imposes upon an incorporated city the absolute duty of performing some act which the [s]tate may lawfully perform and pertaining to the administration of government, the city in the performance of that duty may be clothed with the immunities belonging to the mere agent of the [s]tate. . . . '" Considine v. Water-bury, supra, 279 Conn. 841.

Provision of utilities for profit, such as the operation of a water works, has been ruled proprietary. Abbott v. Bristol, 167 Conn. 143, 355 A.2d 68 (1974); Richmond v. City of Norwalk, 96 Conn. 582, 115 A. 11 (1921); Hourigan v. Norwich, 77 Conn. 358, 59 A. 486 (1904). The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that refuse disposal operations, unlike water utilities, are governmental functions: "[a] refuse disposal operation is generally held to be a governmental function."

Provision of utilities for profit, such as the operation of a water works, has been ruled proprietary. Abbott v. Bristol, 167 Conn. 143 (1974); Richmond v. City of Norwalk, 96 Conn. 582 (1921); Hourigan v. Norwich, 77 Conn. 358 (1904). A proprietary function is an act "done in the management of [a city's] property or rights for its own corporate benefit or profit and that of its inhabitants."

If property is not held and used by a city for municipal purposes exclusively, but in considerable part as a source of revenue, the city may be liable as a private owner would be for injuries resulting from its negligence. Hourigan vs. Norwich, 77 Conn. 358. If a city is to lose the benefit of this immunity, however, the operation of the park must contemplate and involve a revenue of such an amount and nature as to signify a profit resulting therefrom as distinguished from the imposition of a nominal or small fee or charge which may be required as a mere incident to the public service rendered. Carta vs. Norwalk, 108 Conn. 697.