Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Kluczinsky

• Decision Date: 07 September 1976
• Citation: Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Kluczinsky, 370 A.2d 1306, 171 Conn. 516 (Conn. 1976)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: The CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY v. Joseph J. KLUCZINSKY.

Page 1306

370 A.2d 1306

171 Conn. 516

The CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY v.Joseph J. KLUCZINSKY.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Sept. 7, 1976.

Richard J. Scappini, Waterbury, with whom, on the brief, was William J. St. John, Jr., Waterbury, for appellant(defendant).

Robert H. Hall, Waterbury, for appellee(plaintiff).

Before LOISELLE, LONGO, MacDONALD, RUBINOW and HAMILL, JJ.

MacDONALD, Associate Justice.

This appeal from an unfavorable jury verdict and judgment by a defendant who conducted his own trial without counsel raises, primarily, the question whether a pro se litigant who is unable to obtain trial counsel amenable to his demands and terms can claim as error, on appeal, issues not raised by some form of objection before the trial court.It arises from an action brought by the plaintiff, Connecticut Light and Power Company, against the defendant, Joseph J. Kluczinsky, seeking an injunction and claiming damages for expenses incurred by the plaintiff by reason of the defendant's interference with the plaintiff's exercise of its rights to construct a power line on its rights-of-way across property of the defendant.

The basic facts giving rise to this litigation are not controverted and may be summarized briefly.The plaintiff is the grantee of two easements and rights-of-way, one from the defendant's father and predecessor in title and the other from the defendant himself, for the construction and maintenance of transmission towers and electrical power lines, and, in connection therewith, specifically giving the plaintiff the right to use all roads existing on the property included in the rights-of-way and also the use of roads and driveways located upon other adjoining land of the grantors.In 1969, when the plaintiff began its construction work, the terrain on one of the rights-of-way was so softened by weather conditions that it was necessary to spread gravel on the roadways located thereon in order for the construction company hired by the plaintiff to proceed with erection of the transmission towers.On the day the gravel was to be placed on the roadways, the defendant, carrying a can containing liquid, a long stick with a rag on the end of it, and a book of matches, entered the right-of-way and approached the lead truck containing gravel; he threw liquid from the can on the side of the truck and attempted to light the rag on the stick with matches.James Davis, the plaintiff's contractor in charge of the construction work, smelled gasoline and confronted the defendant to prevent him from attempting to ignite the truck.As a result of this confrontation, police were called to the scene, the construction work was stopped and the plaintiff proceeded to obtain an injunction against the defendant ordering him 'to desist and refrain from threatening the employees of the plaintiff and the employees of its contractor, from causing any injury to the aforesaid employees, and from interfering with the exercise by the plaintiff of its rights in your land' as described in the easements.Even after issuance of that injunction, employees of the contractor refused to work at the job site without protection and the plaintiff hired a police officer for protection of the workmen during all hours while work was being performed in the vicinity of the defendant's nearby home.Further delays in construction of the power line were caused by threats by the defendant that if construction continued there 'would be bloodshed,' until the plaintiff filed a motion for contempt in the Court of Common Pleas, after which the work finally was completed.

The plaintiff also claimed damages of $5000 for delays in construction and the expense of furnishing police protection for its employees and those of its contractor, and the defendant counterclaimed for $15,000 for alleged damage to his land and house caused by the plaintiff by its road construction and by alleged blasting on the rights-of-way.The defendant, after consulting several attorneys who, for reasons which readily become apparent from an examination of the transcript, declined to represent him, conducted a five-day trial pro se.It is equally apparent from the transcript that the trial court was patient, courteous and considerate, under most trying circumstances, with the defendant's earnest but frequently misguided efforts to conduct his case without assistance of counsel.

This court consistently has been solicitious of the rights of pro se litigants.Keane v. Smith, 163 Conn. 606, 316 A.2d 416, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1113, 93 S.Ct. 927, 34 L.Ed.2d 696;Bitonti v. Tucker, 162 Conn. 626, 295 A.2d 545, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 851, 93 S.Ct. 62, 34 L.Ed.2d 94.'In such a situation not only this court, but our highest trial court, so far as they properly can, will endeavor to see that such a (litigant) shall have the opportunity to have his case fully and fairly heard, and will endeavor to aid a result, such as this case presents, brought about by (his) lack of legal education and experience, rather than to deny him an opportunity to be heard through a too strict construction of a rule of practice, when this course does not interfere with the just rights of the (other party), nor unduly impede the court in making a proper record for appeal.'Higgins v. Hartford County Bar Assn., 109 Conn. 690, 692, 145 A. 20.In line with the foregoing statement of our policy, the transcript was consulted as previously mentioned, and we will consider those claims of error where there was some indication during the trial, however informal, that the defendant disagreed with the court's ruling; but with respect to other claimed errors, notably those pertaining to the court's charge to the jury and the allowance into evidence of evidence now claimed to be hearsay, our review thereof at this late date would, indeed, 'interfere with the just rights' of the plaintiff.

One claimed error to which the defendant might be said to have registered objection during the trial pertained to the court's denial of his...