Antinozzi v. D. V. Frione & Co.

Decision Date13 March 1951
Citation137 Conn. 577,79 A.2d 598
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesANTINOZZI v. D. V. FRIONE & CO., Inc. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

George J. Yudkin, Derby, Harold B. Yudkin, Derby, for the appellant (plaintiff).

John E. McNerney, New Haven, A. R. Moquet, New Haven, (Francis J. Moran, New Haven, on the brief), for the appellee (defendant).


INGLIS, Judge.

The plaintiff is the owner of greenhouses located on his premises in Derby, where he is engaged in business as a florist. Between September 27, 1946, and October 15, 1947, the defendant, in constructing a highway in the immediate vicinity of the greenhouses, carried on blasting operations which caused damage to them by flying fragments of rock and debris as well as by concussion and vibration. This action to recover for the resulting damage was instituted October 21, 1948. The complaint, as amended, contained three counts, the first alleging negligence, the second, nuisance arising out of negligence, and the third, that the defendant conducted the 'blasting in such a manner that the concussions and vibrations and flying particles of rock and debris caused numerous window panes and glass in the Plaintiff's greenhouses to become cracked and broken.' The defendant by its answer denied the essential allegations of all three counts, and pleaded by three identical special defenses that each, in so far as it purported 'to be a cause of action based upon negligence, did not accrue within one year next before the commencement of this action.' It is conceded that as to the first and second counts this constituted a valid defense. The questions upon this appeal are concerned solely with the cause of action under the third count. The plaintiff claims that this is founded on absolute liability for the ultrahazardous activity of blasting. The court found that the defendant, in doing the blasting as it did, had engaged in an ultrahazardous activity which resulted in damage to the plaintiff, but concluded that the third count stated a cause of action based on negligence or reckless misconduct and that, therefore, recovery was barred by the one-year Statute of Limitations which is now § 8324 of the General Statutes. The court rendered judgment for the defendant.

Section 8324 in so far as material provides: 'No action to recover damages for injury to the person, or to real or personal property, caused by negligence, or by reckless or wanton misconduct, * * * shall be brought but within one year from the date of the act or omission complained of * * *.' Section 8316 states: 'No action founded upon a tort shall be brought but within three years from the date of the act or omission complained of.' The gist of the plaintiff's claims made in the trial court was: The third count is founded on the defendant's absolute liability for damages caused by its intrinsically dangerous activity of blasting and is not a cause of action for damages due to negligence or reckless or wanton misconduct falling within the terms of § 8324; consequently the three-year limitation of § 8316, instead of that of one year under § 8324, applies, and therefore the action is not barred. The court overruled these claims. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Whitman Hotel Corp. v. Elliott & Watrous Engineering Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1951
  • Bedell v. Goulter
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1953
    ...P. 622, L.R.A.1916F, 897; Whitman Hotel Corp. v. Elliott & Watrous Engineering Co., 137 Conn. 562, 79 A.2d 591; Antinozzi v. D. V. Frione & Co., 137 Conn. 577, 79 A.2d 598; Johnson v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co., 182 Mo.App. 349, 170 S.W. 456; McGrath v. Basich Brothers Const. Co., 7 Cal.A......
  • Ricciuti v. Voltarc Tubes, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 1, 1960
    ...sufficient indication in the Connecticut decisions as to the attitude of the Connecticut courts. See, e. g., Antinozzi v. D. V. Frione & Co., Inc., 1951, 137 Conn. 577, 79 A.2d 598, and Staples v. Lucas, 1955, 142 Conn. 452, 115 A.2d 337, 55 A.L.R.2d 1282.6 If there is not, the law of other......
  • Shinabarger v. United Aircraft Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • June 20, 1966
    ...Inc., 277 F.2d 809 (2 Cir. 1960). 6 Milford v. Swarbrick, 24 Conn.Sup. 320, 190 A.2d 493 (Super.Ct.1963); see Antinozzi v. D. V. Frione & Co., 137 Conn. 577, 79 A.2d 598 (1951). 7 Rogers v Doody, 119 Conn. 532, 534, 178 Atl. 51, 52 (1935), quoting from Sharkey v. Skilton, 83 Conn. 503, 507,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT