139 Conn. App. 487
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Ortiz sues the Metropolitan District for injuries from a hole in a street cover allegedly owned/controlled by the district.
- Injury occurred around April 13, 2009; district moves to dismiss citing § 13a-149 notice deficiency.
- Trial court dismissed, holding § 13a-149 exclusive remedy and insufficient notice; savings clause inapplicable due to lack of injury description.
- On appeal, issue is whether § 13a-149 is exclusive and whether Ortiz’s notice to the district suffices under § 13a-149.
- Court binds Ferreira v. Pringle, holding lack of sufficient notice may deprive subject matter jurisdiction; discusses Martin v. Plainville’s notice standard.
- Court concludes § 13a-149 is Ortiz’s exclusive remedy and Ortiz’s notice to the district was legally insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 13a-149 the exclusive remedy for the injury? | Ortiz argues common-law negligence liability remains. | MDC contends § 13a-149 provides the exclusive remedy for highway defects. | § 13a-149 is exclusive remedy. |
| Was Ortiz's notice to the district sufficient under § 13a-149? | Notice to Hartford satisfied statutory requirements; no need to duplicate to the district. | Notice to district must meet five-element sufficiency; here it did not. | Notice to district was insufficient as a matter of law. |
| Does the savings clause salvage defective notice under § 13a-149? | Savings clause should apply to avoid dismissal. | Savings clause cannot cure fatal lack of general description of injuries. | Savings clause does not salvage this notice. |
| Does Ferreira v. Pringle control subject-matter jurisdiction when notice is insufficient? | Some decisions treat insufficiency as non-jurisdictional. | Ferreira holds lack of sufficient notice deprives subject-matter jurisdiction. | Court is bound by Ferreira; lack of sufficient notice affects jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferreira v. Pringle, 255 Conn. 330 (Conn. 2001) (notice sufficiency controls subject-matter jurisdiction under § 13a-149)
- Martin v. Plainville, 240 Conn. 105 (Conn. 1997) (five-element notice requirement and non-salvageable notice)
- Pratt v. Old Saybrook, 225 Conn. 177 (Conn. 1993) (exclusive remedy under highway defect statute)
- Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179 (Conn. 1991) (highway defect statute exclusive remedy guidance)
- Marino v. East Haven, 120 Conn. 577 (Conn. 1935) (notice must describe injuries to be valid under § 13a-149)