Dudley v. Comm'r of Transp.
Decision Date | 06 August 2019 |
Docket Number | AC 40702 |
Citation | 216 A.3d 753,191 Conn.App. 628 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Angela DUDLEY v. COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION et al. |
Lorinda S. Coon, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Jessica M. Scully, for the appellant (defendant).
Thor Holth, with whom, on the brief, was Lorena P. Mancini, New London, for the appellee (plaintiff).
DiPentima, C.J., and Prescott and Bright, Js.
In this action, brought, in part, pursuant to the state defective highway statute, General Statutes § 13a-144,1 the defendant, James P. Redeker, the Commissioner of Transportation (state),2 appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying the state's motion to dismiss the claims asserted against it on sovereign immunity grounds.3 The state claims that the court improperly denied the motion to dismiss because (1) the notice of claim (notice) provided by the plaintiff, Angela Dudley, pursuant to § 13a-144, was patently defective in its description of the location of the alleged defect, and (2) the state did not have a duty to maintain and repair the area in question. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The plaintiff alleges the following facts.4 On or about June 5, 2012, the plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk adjacent to Route 643, Lee Avenue, in New London, and was heading toward Route 213, Ocean Avenue. On or about June 1, 2012, and for several months prior, new utilities had been placed under the paved portion of Ocean Avenue, in an area close to Lee Avenue. During the course of construction, a manhole or inspection plate located at the intersection of Lee and Ocean Avenues was opened so that workers could access items underneath. Once the work was completed, one or more employees, agents, servants, or subcontractors for the state replaced the manhole cover in such a manner as to leave it dislodged or otherwise unstable.
When the plaintiff arrived at the portion of the sidewalk located at the corner of Ocean and Lee Avenues, she stepped onto the manhole cover, which was located in the grassy embankment between the sidewalk area and the adjacent street. When she stepped onto the manhole cover, it flipped up and struck her. The plaintiff lost her balance and fell through the exposed manhole into the sewage drain system. Consequently, the plaintiff suffered physical injury, emotional distress, and has a diminished capacity to earn a living.
The plaintiff provided the state with written notice on August 8, 2012, advising the state of the injuries she sustained from the allegedly defective manhole cover. The notice describes the place of injury as "[s]idewalk and/or intersection of Lee Avenue and Ocean Avenue, New London, Connecticut." It further states, in relevant part:
"As a result of her fall, [the plaintiff] was caused to fall into the sewage drainage system running under the sidewalk and/or street and was caused to land knee-deep in the contaminated water therein."
The plaintiff commenced this action on May 28, 2014. The operative complaint, filed on December 16, 2014, alleges four counts. The first count alleges that the plaintiff is entitled to relief against the state pursuant to § 13a-144. The second count is a municipal highway defect claim against the city pursuant to General Statutes § 13a-149. The third and fourth counts sound in negligence and nuisance, respectively, and are directed against the director of the New London Public Works, Timothy Hanser.5
On August 11, 2015, pursuant to Practice Book § 10-30 et seq., the state filed a motion to dismiss count one of the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the notice requirements of § 13a-144 and, therefore, her action against the state was barred by sovereign immunity. In its original motion to dismiss, dated August 11, 2015, the state claimed that the notice was patently defective for three reasons: (1) the location of the alleged incident was different from that which the plaintiff identified in her complaint; (2) the notice of the claim identified multiple locations; and (3) the area described in the notice contained multiple manhole covers. The state filed an amended motion to dismiss on December 15, 2015, which incorporated the three reasons set forth in its original motion to dismiss and additionally alleged that count one was barred by sovereign immunity because the plaintiff did not allege that the incident occurred on a state highway and, therefore, the state did not have a duty to maintain or repair the sidewalk on which the plaintiff allegedly was injured. The court heard oral argument on the state's motion to dismiss on June 30, 2016. On August 17, 2016, the court received the last of several posthearing briefs on the matter.
The court filed a memorandum of decision on June 9, 2017, rejecting all four of the state's claimed grounds for dismissal. In its analysis, the court consolidated its discussion of the first three grounds related to whether the plaintiff's notice was patently defective. Recognizing that the purpose of such notice is to provide the state with adequate information upon which it can make a timely investigation of the alleged facts, the court concluded that the notice provided sufficient factual information upon which the state reasonably could identify the location of the allegedly defective manhole cover. In particular, the court noted that the notice states that the plaintiff was walking on a sidewalk at the time of the incident and, further, that only one of the manhole covers in the area described in the notice is located within a sidewalk. Accordingly, the court concluded that the notice was not patently defective.
As to the fourth ground of the amended motion to dismiss, the court determined that the plaintiff's argument was not that the state had a duty to maintain the sidewalk, but instead, that the state had a duty to maintain the allegedly defective manhole cover. It concluded that further factual development was necessary to resolve this matter and, thus, rejected the state's argument that it is not liable as a matter of law. This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.
We begin by setting forth the relevant principles of law and the applicable standard of review. "It is the established law of our state that the state is immune from suit unless the state, by appropriate legislation, consents to be sued.... The legislature waived the state's sovereign immunity from suit in certain prescribed instances by the enactment of § 13a-144.... The statute imposes the duty to keep the state highways in repair upon ... the commissioner ... and authorizes civil actions against the state for injuries caused by the neglect or default of the state ... by means of any defective highway .... There being no right of action against the sovereign state at common law, the [plaintiff] must first prevail, if at all, under § 13a-144....
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Giannoni v. Commissioner of Transportation , 322 Conn. 344, 348, 141 A.3d 784 (2015).
6 (Footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Norris v. Trumbull , 187 Conn. App. 201, 209, 201 A.3d 1137 (2019).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Burton
-
Dobie v. City of New Haven
...Conn. 427, 429–30, 172 A. 853 (1934) (improperly installed manhole cover constituted highway defect); Dudley v. Commissioner of Transportation , 191 Conn. App. 628, 646, 216 A.3d 753 ("the allegedly defective manhole cover is within the definition of ‘highway defect’ "), cert. denied, 333 C......
- Moutinho v. 500 N. Ave., LLC
-
Murphy v. Town of Clinton
...adequacy is a question to be determined by the trier of fact or a question of law for the court. See Dudley v. Commissioner of Transportation , 191 Conn. App. 628, 640 n.9, 216 A.3d 753, cert. denied, 333 Conn. 930, 218 A.3d 69 (2019).4 The defendant also argues that the language in the pla......
-
Recent Tort Developments
...it appears that there was no intention to mislead or that such town, city, corporation or borough was not in fact misled thereby." [64] 191 Conn. App. 628, 630, 216 A.3d 753, cert. denied, 333 Conn. 930, 218 A.3d 69 (2019). [65] Id. [66] Id. at 636. [67] Id. at 637. [68] Id. at 639-40. [69]......