Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdamagesstatutewill
plaintiffdamagesstatutewill

Related Cases

Moayedi v. Customs and Border Protection
View Case »
Hernandez-Guerrero; U.S. v.
View Case »
Elatos Restaurant Corp. v. Sava
View Case »
Bibicheff v. Holder
View Case »
Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kumah, Matter of

Facts

In the early morning of September 3, 2006, Leo G. Brown was operating a tractor trailer in a westerly direction on Interstate 95 in Greenwich. Brown lost control of the tractor trailer, struck a jersey barrier and bridge railing, and eventually came to a stop in the right and center lanes of the roadway. Following the accident, Robert Lucas, a member of the Cos Cob fire police patrol, responded to the scene and parked a fire truck diagonally across the center and right lanes. Shortly thereafter, William Kumah, who was driving his automobile on the interstate, collided with the parked fire truck, sustaining serious physical injuries. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the town, claiming the fire truck constituted a nuisance.

In the early morning of September 3, 2006, Leo G. Brown was operating a tractor trailer in a westerly direction on Interstate 95 in Greenwich. Brown lost control of the tractor trailer, struck a jersey barrier and bridge railing, and eventually came to a stop in the right and center lanes of the roadway. Following the accident, Robert Lucas, a member of the Cos Cob fire police patrol, responded to the scene and parked a fire truck diagonally across the center and right lanes. Shortly thereafter, William Kumah, who was driving his automobile on the interstate, collided with the parked fire truck, sustaining serious physical injuries. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the town, claiming the fire truck constituted a nuisance.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs' nuisance claims are barred by General Statutes 52-557n (a) (1), which limits claims for damages arising out of a defective road or bridge against a municipality to General Statutes 13a-149.

Whether the plaintiffs' nuisance claims are barred by General Statutes 52-557n (a) (1), which limits claims for damages arising out of a defective road or bridge against a municipality to General Statutes 13a-149.

Rule

General Statutes 52-557n (a) (1) provides that no claim for damages arising out of a defective road or bridge may be brought against a municipality except pursuant to General Statutes 13a-149, the municipal highway defect statute.

General Statutes 52-557n (a) (1) provides that no claim for damages arising out of a defective road or bridge may be brought against a municipality except pursuant to General Statutes 13a-149, the municipal highway defect statute.

Analysis

The court found that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs' nuisance claims were not barred by the statute because the plaintiffs did not allege that the roadway was one which the town was obligated to keep in repair, as it was an interstate highway. The court distinguished the present case from Himmelstein, where the plaintiff had alleged that the municipality was responsible for maintaining the road, thus bringing the claim under the exclusivity provision of 13a-149.

The court found that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs' nuisance claims were not barred by the statute because the plaintiffs did not allege that the roadway was one which the town was obligated to keep in repair, as it was an interstate highway. The court distinguished the present case from Himmelstein, where the plaintiff had alleged that the municipality was responsible for maintaining the road, thus bringing the claim under the exclusivity provision of 13a-149.

Conclusion

The state supreme court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, allowing the plaintiffs' nuisance claims to proceed.

The state supreme court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, allowing the plaintiffs' nuisance claims to proceed.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in the case because the court found that their nuisance claims were not barred by the statutory provisions that the town argued applied.

The plaintiffs prevailed in the case because the court found that their nuisance claims were not barred by the statutory provisions that the town argued applied.

You must be