Opinion
No. CV02-0470195
July 22, 2003
MEMORARANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY THE DEFENDANT'S TEMPLE STREET ASSOCIATES AND FUSCO MANAGEMENT COMPANY (#114)
The issue here is one of law. In the absence of a positive act, an exception not applicable here, traditional public sidewalk liability case law does not hold abutting owners responsible for defective public sidewalks. Wilson v. New Haven, 213 Conn. 277, 280 (1989); Dreher v. Joseph, 60 Conn. App. 257 (2000). Nor are any issues raised here concerning transfers of liability by ordinance or statute.
There is also case law holding that notwithstanding possession or control a property owner is under a duty to take appropriate steps to prevent its invitees from using dangerous off-premises entrances or exits to its property. Ford v. Hotel Restaurant Employees Bartenders Union, 155 Conn. 24 (1967). The plaintiff relies on Ford's progeny in opposing this motion. The movants claim the rule does not apply to public sidewalk cases.
The tension between these two lines of cases is demonstrated in Swain v. Leninski, 47 Conn. 660 (2003). For the reasons stated therein, this court concludes that Ford has no applicability to public sidewalk cases. Moreover, to conclude otherwise would emasculate the law of sole proximate cause which is one of the cornerstones for municipal liability for sidewalk defects.
Motion granted.
Licari, J. CT Page 8453-is