157 Conn. App. 528
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Beeman tripped on a raised sidewalk in Stratford on April 17, 2009 and sued the Town under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-149 (claim for defective highway/sidewalk).
- Beeman’s counsel sent statutory notice on May 19, 2009 describing injuries generally ("head, left wrist, left hand, left arm, ribs and both knees") and stating intent to sue within two years.
- The town moved to dismiss for insufficient § 13a-149 notice; the trial court initially granted the motion but later granted Beeman’s motion to reargue, vacated its dismissal, and denied the town’s subsequent dismissal motion.
- At trial the town presented a town attorney who testified the town had not been misled by the vague injury description and typically did not investigate injuries until suit was filed. The court ruled notice sufficiency was a legal question and found the savings clause applicable.
- Jury returned a verdict for Beeman for $63,468.07; the trial court denied the town’s motion to set aside the verdict or for a new trial. The town appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficiency of § 13a-149 notice was for the court or jury | Beeman: notice included a general description and, absent evidence of intent to mislead or actual misleading, the savings clause excuses vagueness — court may decide as a matter of law | Town: sufficiency (and whether savings clause applies) is an issue of fact for the jury to resolve | Court: question was properly decided as a matter of law because no factual dispute existed; town presented no evidence it was misled and town attorney’s testimony confirmed lack of misleading conduct, so savings clause applied. |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by granting Beeman’s motion to reargue and vacating prior dismissal | Beeman: court overlooked Salemme and savings-clause analysis in its first decision; reconsideration was appropriate | Town: no law or facts were overlooked; reargument was impermissible second bite and court should not have vacated its earlier order | Court: no abuse of discretion — reconsideration was reasonable; Salemme warranted applying the savings clause to vague but non‑absent descriptions. |
| Whether the verdict should be set aside/new trial due to contributory negligence (plaintiff allegedly not looking down while "power walking") | Beeman: evidence showed she tripped on a raised slab and town failed to maintain or inspect sidewalks; proximate cause question supported jury verdict | Town: plaintiff’s inattentive walking was a proximate cause; jury’s sole-proximate-cause finding was unreasonable | Court: denied new trial — sufficient evidence supported jury’s finding that the sidewalk defect and town’s failure to maintain it were the sole proximate cause; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- MSO, LLC v. DeSimone, 313 Conn. 54 (2014) (standard of appellate review for legal conclusions and factual findings)
- Martin v. Plainville, 240 Conn. 105 (1997) (§ 13a-149 requires written notice with five elements; general description of injury required)
- Salemme v. Seymour, 262 Conn. 787 (2003) (savings clause can save vague or inaccurate notices unless an element is entirely absent or the municipality was misled)
- Phinney v. Casale, 40 Conn. App. 495 (1996) (court decides legal questions; jury decides factual disputes)
- Morin v. Bell Court Condominium Assn., 25 Conn. App. 112 (1991) (where facts are undisputed, notice sufficiency is a question of law)
- Pratt v. Old Saybrook, 225 Conn. 177 (1993) (purpose of § 13a-149 notice is to permit prompt municipal investigation and protect financial interests)
- Nikides v. Wethersfield, 148 Conn. App. 186 (2014) (plaintiff must prove defect was sole proximate cause under § 13a-149)