Marino v. Town of East Haven
| Decision Date | 03 December 1935 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | MARINO v. TOWN OF EAST HAVEN. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John Rufus Boorth and Arthur F. Ells, Judges.
Action by Emilio Marino against the Town of East Haven, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by a defective sidewalk. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and judgment rendered for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
No error.
W. H Burland and Morris B. Straka, both of New Haven, for appellant.
George E. Beers, and Bertram Weil, both of New Haven, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE; C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he fell and was injured, on June 2d, 1934, by reason of a defect in a sidewalk in the defendant town, and by amendment set forth a copy of the notice given on his behalf to the defendant, on June 6th, which disclosed that the only reference therein to his injuries was a statement that he " fell and was injured," and the place specified was on Merline avenue. A supplementary notice, filed more than six months afterward, stated that the defect was in Coe avenue instead of Merline avenue. The defendant demurred to the complaint as so amended, on the grounds that the notice contained no general description of the plaintiff's injury or the place of its occurrence, and the demurrer was sustained on both grounds. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an amendment to his complaint alleging that he did not intend to mislead the defendant by any inaccuracy in the notice, and that the town was not in fact misled. The sustaining of a second demurrer, on grounds similar to those first set up, is assigned as error on this appeal.
The provisions of the statute (General Statutes, § 1420) which are directly involved are that no action for damages for injuries sustained through a defective highway shall be maintained against any town unless written notice of such injury and " a general description of the same" and of the cause thereof and of the " time and place of its occurrence" shall be given to a selectman of such town " within sixty days," except where action is begun within such time. The statute further provides that: " No notice given under the provisions of this section shall be held invalid or insufficient by reason of an inaccuracy in describing the injury, or in stating the time, place or cause of its occurrence if it shall appear that there was no intention to mislead or that such town *** was not in fact misled thereby."
The giving of a notice sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute is a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action under it. The obligation to comply with the statute in this respect rests upon the plaintiff, and, lacking such sufficient notice, he has no cause of action which he can maintain against the defendant town. Nicholaus v. City of Bridgeport, 117 Conn. 398, 401, 402, 167 A. 826. The sufficiency of the notice is to be tested by the provisions and purpose of the statute. We have quite recently reviewed the legislative history of the successive statutory requirements concerning this notice. Sizer v. City of Waterbury (1931) 113 Conn. 145, 156, 154 A. 639. The general purpose of the original requirement of written notice (Public Acts 1874, c. 23) pervades the succeeding changes in phraseology as to the content and extent of the notice and the statute now in effect. That purpose is that the officers of a municipal corporation against which claim is made for damages for injuries shall be provided with such information as will enable them to intelligently investigate the facts upon which the claim is based. Shaw v. Waterbury, 46 Conn. 263, 266. " The purpose of these notices is ‘ that of furnishing the recipients with such available information as is calculated to assist them in self-protection." Krooner v. City of Waterbury, 105 Conn. 476, 481, 136 A. 93, 95. See, also, Goodwin v. Gardiner, 84 Me. 278, 24 A. 846.
As we pointed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stone v. District of Columbia
...222 Minn. 179, 24 N.W.2d 232 (1946). 43 Brannon v. City of Birmingham, 177 Ala. 419, 59 So.63 (1912). 44 Marino v. Town of East Haven. 120 Conn. 577, 182 A. 225, 103 A.L.R. 295 (1935). 45 Schaap v. City of Meriden, 139 Conn. 254, 93 A.2d 152 (1952). 46 Atkinson v. City of Indianapolis, 101 ......
-
McLean v. City of Spirit Lake
...230, 197 N.E.2d 321 (1964); Thomas v. City of South Charleston, 148 W.Va. 577, 136 S.E.2d 788 (1964); Marino v. Town of East Haven, 120 Conn. 577,192 A. 225, 103 A.L.R. 295 (Conn., 1935); Bigelow v. City of Los Angeles,141 Cal. 503, 75 P. 111 (1904); MacLeod v. Town of Milford, 25 Conn.Sup.......
-
Willoughby v. City of New Haven
... ... to that which is so essential to liability of a municipality, ... Marino v. East Haven, 120 Conn. 577, 182 A. 225, 103 ... A.L.R. 295; it being first made in the 1937 act ... ...
-
Martin v. Town of Plainville
...the plaintiff's alleged injuries rendered the notice defective as a matter of law under the precedent set forth in Marino v. East Haven, 120 Conn. 577, 578, 182 A. 225 (1935) (written notice indicating that plaintiff "fell and was injured" was insufficient as matter of law due to lack of ge......
-
Developments in Tort Law: 1997 Annual Survey
...(1997). 51. Id., at 108-09. The court specifically rejected the opportunity to overrule the case of Marino v. East Haven, 120 Conn. 577, 182 A. 225 (1937). Marino found that a notice which simply stated that a person "fell and was injured" was insufficient as a matter of law due to the lack......