Ordinarily, this duty to keep in repair is imposed on the commissioner with respect to the vehicular portion of a trunk-line highway but not with respect to a sidewalk, even though it lies within the limits of a trunk-line highway. Moleske v. MacDonald, 109 Conn. 336, 339, 146 A. 820; Hornyak v. Fairfield, 135 Conn. 619, 621, 67 A.2d 562; Schoenfeld v. Meriden, 136 Conn. 346, 350, 70 A.2d 922. "[W]here the state takes over an existing street or highway as a state road, it assumes the responsibility for its use and maintenance for all purposes incident to vehicular traffic, and it leaves undisturbed the existing responsibility of the municipalities for sidewalks and the like." Schoenfeld v. Meriden, supra, 351. Under the provisions of 13-125 (c), there are certain exceptions to the foregoing general rule, but the complaint contains no allegations which would bring the sidewalk here within any of those exceptions or in any other manner indicate that it was a sidewalk which the defendant was under a duty to keep in repair.

It is apparent that the sidewalk in question looks like a city sidewalk which is the responsibility of the City to keep in repair. Schoenfeld v. City of Meriden, 136 Conn. 346 (1949). The jury was not required to accept the testimony that Fairfield Avenue is a state road and therefore it is the State’s obligation to care for the sidewalk particularly when the Counsel for the City of Bridgeport appropriated funds for the maintenance of sidewalks which would apply to the subject area.

The Connecticut courts have held generally that "the [Commissioner of Transportation (DOT)] is not liable for injuries occurring upon sidewalks even where built within the limits of the state highway and that this responsibility rests upon the town in which it lies." Faircloth v. Cox, 18 Conn. Sup. 499, 500 (Super.Ct. 1954), citing Moleske v. MacDonald, 109 Conn. 336, 146 A. 820 (1929); Hornyak v. Fairfield, 135 Conn. 619, 67 A.2d 562 (1949); Schoenfeld v. Meriden, 136 Conn. 346, 70 A.2d 922 (1949); see also Tuckel v. Argraves, 148 Conn. 355, 170 A.2d 895 (1961). "When a motion for summary judgment is supported by affidavits and other documents, an adverse party, by affidavit or as otherwise provided by practice Book § 380, must set forth specific facts that there is a genuine issue for trial, and if he does not respond, the court is entitled to rely upon the facts stated in the affidavits by the movant.

There have been many decisions by the Supreme Court interpreting this statute and its predecessors with reference to the duty imposed upon the commissioner and its limitations. It has been definitely decided that he is not liable for injuries occurring upon sidewalks even where built within the limits of the state highway and that this responsibility rests upon the town in which it lies. Moleske v. MacDonald, 109 Conn. 336; Hornyak v. Fairfield, 135 Conn. 619; Schoenfeld v. Meriden, 136 Conn. 346. In Hay v. Hill, 137 Conn. 285, the commissioner was held liable to a pedestrian who had left the car in which she was riding to answer a call of nature and actually fell in a culvert beyond the shoulder of the highway.

This is a prerequisite to the defendant's liability under § 2242(d) for a defective condition of a sidewalk. Schoenfeld v. Meriden, 136 Conn. 346, 351. It follows that the third ground of the demurrer is sound. The second ground of demurrer is based upon the claim that it appears that the plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk and not on the traveled portion of the highway.