Ozmun v. Burns
Decision Date | 05 June 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 7469,7469 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Christopher D. OZMUN v. J. William BURNS, Commissioner of Transportation, et al. |
Douglas G. Farber, West Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Louis B. Blumenfeld, with whom was Robert M. Derosier and, on the brief, Richard A. Ferris, Hartford, for appellee (named defendant).
Before BORDEN, SPALLONE and JACOBSON, JJ.
The plaintiff appeals from a partial judgment rendered on behalf of the named defendant, 1 after the trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff claims that the court erred (1) in concluding that the notice given to the defendant was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of General Statutes § 13a-144, 2 and (2) in not allowing the jury to decide whether the notice was sufficient under the statute. We find no error. The record discloses the following facts. On July 26, 1985, the plaintiff was riding a bicycle on Route 10 in Simsbury; the bicycle struck a hole in the roadway, the plaintiff was thrown from the bicycle, and was injured. Pursuant to General Statutes § 13a-144, on October 3, 1985, the plaintiff gave written notice of the occurrence to the defendant, describing the nature of his injuries, and the time, date and location of the accident. This appeal is addressed to the sufficiency of the description of the accident's location.
The notice sent to the defendant stated that the accident occurred as a result of a defect in the highway The notice further stated that "photographs of the location and of the injured portions of his body" were available for the defendant to inspect.
The plaintiff amended his complaint in July, 1988, changing the description of the accident location. 3 The defendant moved to dismiss, claiming that the notice failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff filed this appeal. The plaintiff concedes that the description in the notice was erroneous.
The plaintiff's first claim is that the trial court erred in determining that the notice was insufficient under the statute. He argues that the statute requires only that the notice give a general description of the location of the accident, which he claims was given the defendant, and that making the photographs available to the defendant for inspection contributed to making the notice sufficient. We disagree.
Zotta v. Burns, 8 Conn. App. 169, 173, 511 A.2d 373 (1986).
Whether the notice fails to meet the requirements of the statute must be determined by examining the purpose of the notice. Schaap v. Meriden, 139 Conn. 254, 256, 93 A.2d 152 (1952).
We hold that the notice given to the defendant failed to satisfy the statutory notice requirement. The description of the location of the accident was so faulty that it is clear that the defendant would not have been able to ascertain readily the location of the hole and make an intelligent inquiry into the details of the accident. We also agree with the defendant that the mere availability of photographs did not provide further written notice as required by the statute.
The plaintiff's second claim is that the court erred in deciding whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lussier v. Department of Transp.
...806, 561 A.2d 947 (1989) (notice describing location of accident as "Route 109, New Milford, Connecticut 06776"); Ozmun v. Burns, 18 Conn.App. 677, 679, 559 A.2d 1143 (1989) ("in the vicinity of the Ensign Bickford Company between the traffic lights"); the notice given here set forth suffic......
-
Berger v. Fitzgerald, (AC 18045)
...for the trier of fact and the question must be determined on the basis of the facts of the particular case. Ozmun v. Burns, 18 Conn. App. 677, 681, 559 A.2d 1143 (1989). The trial court, however, "must first determine whether, as a matter of law, a purported notice patently meets or fails t......
-
Curry v. Burns, 9488
...statutory written notice is a condition precedent to maintaining an action under General Statutes § 13a-144. Ozmun v. Burns, 18 Conn.App. 677, 680, 559 A.2d 1143 (1989). Because a general verdict was returned in this case, we need not address the plaintiff's claims because any error by the ......
-
Murray v. Frankel, 11392
...a legislative exception to this common law rule and therefore must be strictly construed. Id., 321, 567 A.2d 1195; Ozmun v. Burns, 18 Conn.App. 677, 680, 559 A.2d 1143 (1989). The statutorily required notice is a condition precedent to maintaining a cause of action, and if this requirement ......