194 Conn.App. 871
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiff Cynthia Cyr tripped on an approximately 1.5-inch lip between two segments of a public sidewalk abutting property at 344 Stevens Street, Bristol, and sued VKB, Shady Oaks Assisted Living, Shady Oaks Rest Home, and Vernon and Kay Belanger for negligence and nuisance.
- Complaint alleged alternative theories: the defect developed from settling of an adjacent segment (natural causes) and that the defendants (or predecessors/agents) constructed the sidewalk with the defect.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts arguing (1) the Bristol ordinance (§ 21-37) only imposes a repair duty, not civil liability; (2) common law generally imposes no duty on abutting landowners for public sidewalk defects; and (3) no evidence defendants created the defect.
- Defendants’ motion lacked supporting affidavits or documentary evidence; they submitted evidentiary materials only with their reply brief.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants. On appeal, the court affirmed dismissal of counts based on the ordinance and on settling/natural causes, but reversed dismissal of counts alleging the defendants constructed the sidewalk with the defect (remanding those counts for further proceedings).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the city ordinance (§ 21-37) shift civil liability to abutting landowners? | Ordinance creates duties and supports negligence/negligence-per-se claims against VKB. | Ordinance only shifts repair/maintenance duty, not civil liability for injuries. | Ordinance does not shift liability; SJ affirmed as to ordinance-based counts (plaintiff conceded this issue on appeal). |
| Are defendants liable for a defect that developed from settling/natural causes? | Settling produced the hazardous lip and defendants are responsible for the abutting sidewalk. | Natural settling does not constitute a defendant’s positive act; common law imposes no duty for natural defects. | Settling/natural-causes theory insufficient as a matter of law; SJ affirmed for counts alleging settling. |
| Can defendants be held liable under the positive-act exception for constructing the sidewalk with the defect, and did defendants meet their burden on summary judgment? | Allegations that defendants constructed the sidewalk with the 1.5" lip fall within the positive-act exception and raise triable issues. | Defendants argued they did not create the defect and moved for SJ. | Counts alleging construction-created defect state a cognizable claim; defendants failed to meet initial SJ burden (no supporting evidence), so SJ improperly granted as to those counts — reversed and remanded. |
| Does the business-invitee doctrine impose a heightened duty on a property owner regarding an abutting public sidewalk? | A business owner inviting public entry/exit at a location owes a duty to keep that location reasonably safe. | The invitee cases do not apply to public sidewalks and do not create a new exception to the common-law rule. | Court rejected extension of invitee doctrine to public sidewalk defects; Ford was inapposite. SJ on that theory properly granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Cianfarani, 314 Conn. 521 (Conn. 2014) (municipality has primary duty to maintain public sidewalks; ordinance must expressly confer liability to impose it on abutting owner)
- Wilson v. New Haven, 213 Conn. 277 (Conn. 1989) (abutting landowner ordinarily has no duty to keep public sidewalk reasonably safe absent statute/ordinance or defendant-created hazard)
- McFarline v. Mickens, 177 Conn. App. 83 (Conn. App. 2017) (reiterating the statute/ordinance and positive-act exceptions; natural causes do not impose duty)
- Gambardella v. Kaoud, 38 Conn. App. 355 (Conn. App. 1995) (positive-act exception examples where owner’s conduct caused public-walk hazards)
- Hartford v. Talcott, 48 Conn. 525 (Conn. 1881) (no common-law liability for sidewalk obstructions produced wholly by natural causes)
- Ford v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, 155 Conn. 24 (Conn. 1967) (invitee doctrine applied to injuries occurring on lessor’s premises — held inapposite to public sidewalk context)
- Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 310 Conn. 304 (Conn. 2013) (summary judgment burden rules: movant must negate opponent’s claims; nonmovant need not submit evidence if movant fails to meet its burden)