Filippi v. Sullivan
Decision Date | 22 February 2005 |
Docket Number | (SC 17068). |
Citation | 866 A.2d 599,273 Conn. 1 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | MARK FILIPPI v. JAMES F. SULLIVAN, COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. |
Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js.
Michael J. Walsh, with whom, on the brief, was Ann Walsh Henderson, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Paul Nowosadko, with whom, on the brief, was Lorinda S. Coon, for the appellee (named defendant).
The plaintiff, Mark Filippi, brought this defective highway action under General Statutes § 13a-1441 against the named defendant, James F. Sullivan, the commissioner of transportation (commissioner),2 seeking damages for injuries that the plaintiff had sustained in an automobile accident allegedly caused by the commissioner's negligent failure to post lane closure signs on a portion of Interstate 95 in East Lyme. The commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that the notice submitted by the plaintiff to the commissioner as required by § 13a-144 was patently defective and, therefore, insufficient as a matter of law. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the commissioner appealed to the Appellate Court. On appeal, the Appellate Court concluded that the trial court improperly had determined that the notice was not insufficient as a matter of law and, therefore, reversed the trial court's denial of the commissioner's motion to dismiss. Filippi v. Sullivan, 78 Conn. App. 796, 807, 829 A.2d 77 (2003). We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiff's written notice under . . . § 13a-144 was patently defective?" Filippi v. Sullivan, 266 Conn. 916, 833 A.2d 467 (2003). We answer that question in the negative and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following relevant facts. "On March 15, 2000, the plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident while driving in a northerly direction on Interstate 95 between exits seventy-two and seventy-three. Department of transportation crews were performing roadwork and had closed the right lane on the northbound side [of Interstate 95] between exits seventy-three and seventy-five. Although signs indicating the lane closure had been placed between exits seventy-three and seventy-six, a resulting traffic jam extended beyond the sign pattern, and the plaintiff was injured in that unsigned area.
Filippi v. Sullivan, supra, 78 Conn. App. 798.
Thereafter, pursuant to § 13a-144, the plaintiff filed timely written notice with the commissioner of his intent to assert a defective highway claim.3 The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action, alleging that the commissioner had breached his duty to maintain the highway in a reasonably safe condition in failing to post sufficient warning signs of the lane closure. The commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that the notice's description of the place where the injury had occurred, namely, "at a point in the roadway [located immediately after a graded blind curve that was] approximately 1/4 of a mile south of [the] Exit 73 exit ramp, and approximately 1/10 of a mile north of [the] Exit 72 exit ramp," was inadequate as a matter of law. In support of his motion to dismiss, the commissioner submitted an affidavit provided by Frederick Atwell, a planner for the department of transportation, who stated therein that Atwell also stated that, "[t]hroughout the [1.6 mile] stretch of roadway between the locations identified by the plaintiff, there are various terrains including grades, curves, slopes and straight roadway." The commissioner maintained that, in light of these uncontested assertions, the plaintiff's notice was patently defective insofar as its description of the place of injury was concerned.4
After a hearing, the trial court issued a ruling from the bench denying the commissioner's motion to dismiss. The commissioner appealed from the denial of the motion to the Appellate Court,5 claiming that the plaintiff's notice was patently defective because it identified the place of injury as two different locations that are 1.6 miles apart. The commissioner also claimed that the statement in the notice indicating that the accident had occurred immediately after a "graded blind curve" was insufficient to save the notice from infirmity in light of Atwell's uncontroverted assertion that the 1.6 mile stretch of highway identified in the notice contained more than one curve.
The Appellate Court agreed with the commissioner that Id., 802-803. With regard to that part of the notice indicating that the accident had occurred immediately after the plaintiff had negotiated a graded blind curve, the Appellate Court stated that Id., 803. Thus, the Appellate Court concluded that Id., 803-804.
On the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court, contending that the Appellate Court improperly had concluded that the plaintiff's notice was inadequate as a matter of law because it did not contain a reasonably definite and specific description of the place of injury. In particular, the plaintiff maintains, inter alia, that the facts set forth in the notice pertaining to the place of injury were sufficient to permit a determination that the notice was not patently defective. We agree with the plaintiff.
Before addressing the merits of the plaintiff's claim, we set forth the applicable standard of review. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Welwood, 258 Conn. 425, 433, 780 A.2d 924 (2001). Moreover, (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Lagassey v. State, 268 Conn. 723, 736, 846 A.2d 831 (2004).
We now turn to the plaintiff's contention that, contrary to the conclusion of the Appellate Court, the notice that he provided to the commissioner pursuant to § 13a-144 was not patently defective. The principles that govern our resolution of the plaintiff's claim are well established. Lussier v. Dept. of Transportation, 228 Conn. 343, 354, 636 A.2d 808 (1994).
"The notice [mandated under § 13a-144] is to be tested with reference to the purpose for which it is required." Morico v. Cox, 134 Conn. 218, 223, 56 A.2d 522 (1947). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stotler v. Dep't of Transp.
...facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader.’ ... Filippi v. Sullivan, [273 Conn. 1, 8, 866 A.2d 599 (2005) ]; see also Shay v. Rossi, 253 Conn. 134, 140, 749 A.2d 1147 (2000), overruled in part by Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, ......
-
Harnage v. Murphy
...... treated as a motion to strike under Connecticut rules of. practice); Sullivan v. Analysis & Technology, Inc. ,. Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. CV554076, (November 21, 2000) (Hurley, J.) ... allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to. the pleader." (Internal quotation marks omitted.). Filippi v. Sullivan , 273 Conn. 1, 8, 866 A.2d 599. (2005). Thus, the question " is whether the facts as. alleged in the pleadings, viewed in the ......
-
Graham v. Comm'r of Transp.
...the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars a claim necessarily implicate the court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Filippi v. Sullivan , 273 Conn. 1, 8, 866 A.2d 599 (2005). "This court has often stated that the question of subject matter jurisdiction, because it 168 Conn.App. 607addresses ......
-
Dorry v. Garden
...facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader.’ ... Filippi v. Sullivan, [273 Conn. 1, 8, 866 A.2d 599 (2005) ]; see also Shay v. Rossi, 253 Conn. 134, 140, 749 A.2d 1147 (2000), overruled in part by Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301, ......
-
2005 Survey of Developments in Civil Litigation
...procedural scheme where there is no prejudice to the 15 274 Conn. 497, 876 A.2d 1148 (2005). 16 274 Conn. 262, 875 A.2d 459 (2005). 17 273 Conn. 1, 866 A.2d 599 (2005). 18 Accord, 184 Windsor Ave, LLC v. State, 274 Conn. 302, 874 A.2d 498 (2005)(no subject matter jurisdiction where State im......
-
Significant Tort Developments in 2005
...ninety 49 86 Conn. App. 842, 863 A. 2d 735 (2005). 50 Id. at 849. 51 Id. at 848-50. 52 Id. at 851-52. 53 Id. at 852. 54 Id. at 852-54. 55 273 Conn. 1, 3, 866 A. 2d 599 (2005). The Court noted that, although the denial of a motion to dismiss generally is an interlocutory ruling, this does no......