125 Conn. App. 149
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- Bartlett was injured February 15, 2007 on Maple Avenue in Hartford due to an allegedly improperly positioned storm drain on a sidewalk.
- Bartlett sued the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) in May 2008, with a second amended complaint asserting MDC maintained the storm drain and was negligent for inadequate inspection and maintenance.
- MDC admitted in its answer that it maintains the storm drain and alleged four special defenses, including that the injury arose from a defective road within § 13a-149 and that § 13a-149 notice was not provided.
- MDC moved to dismiss in January 2009 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing § 13a-149 was the exclusive remedy and required 90‑day notice; the motion did not include affidavits.
- The trial court granted the motion on April 30, 2009, holding the claim fell under § 13a-149 and that the plaintiff failed to provide notice; plaintiff's motions to vacate were denied, and this appeal followed.
- The appellate court upheld dismissal, concluding the storm drain on Maple Avenue is a highway defect under § 13a-149, MDC was the party bound to keep the location in repair, and the plaintiff failed to comply with the statute’s notice requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 13a-149 govern the claim and require notice? | Bartlett argues § 13a-149 does not apply because MDC was not the party bound to repair Maple Avenue. | MDC contends the claim falls within § 13a-149 and requires 90-day notice to sue. | Yes; § 13a-149 governs and requires notice. |
| Which entity had the duty to maintain the storm drain at the location of injury? | Bartlett claims ambiguity between MDC and city; the pleadings create a factual issue for resolution. | MDC asserts it was bound to maintain the storm drains as part of its authority and the pleadings admit that. | MDC was the party bound to keep the storm drain in repair. |
| Is a sidewalk storm drain cover a highway defect under § 13a-149? | Bartlett contends the defect is not a road/defect under § 13a-149. | MDC maintains the storm drain defect on a sidewalk is within the statute’s scope as a defective roadway component. | Yes; the storm drain cover on a sidewalk constitutes a highway defect under § 13a-149. |
| Was an evidentiary hearing required before granting the motion to dismiss? | Plaintiff contends disputed jurisdiction facts necessitated an evidentiary hearing. | MDC argues no jurisdictional facts were disputed and no hearing was required. | No; no evidentiary hearing was required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferreira v. Pringle, 255 Conn. 330 (2001) (highway defect when condition makes travel not reasonably safe)
- Coughlin v. Waterbury, 61 Conn. App. 310 (2001) (subject matter jurisdiction tied to who had duty to maintain at the injury location)
- Novicki v. New Haven, 47 Conn. App. 734 (1998) (liability under § 13a-149 depends on who is bound to keep in repair)
- Machado v. Hartford, 292 Conn. 364 (2009) (municipality cannot delegate its duty to maintain its roads to a private contractor)
- Bellman v. West Hartford, 96 Conn. App. 387 (2006) ( sidewalks may be within § 13a-149 when defective for travel safety)
- Bagg v. Thompson, 114 Conn. App. 30 (2009) (lack of jurisdiction when statutory prerequisites are not met)
- Amodeo v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358 (1994) (jurisdictional review standards for motions to dismiss)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (2009) (distinguishes when evidentiary hearing is required in jurisdictional questions)
- West Haven Sound Development Corp. v. West Haven, 201 Conn. 305 (1986) (judicial admissions in pleadings can be binding)