162 Conn.App. 760
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiffs John and Patricia Perry alleged the Town of Putnam created a nuisance by siting, gravelling, marking, and signing a public parking area on town property immediately adjacent to their home and directing people to park there.
- Plaintiffs claimed assorted disruptive activities occurred in the lot (noise, littering, criminal behavior, headlights, loud music, overnight idling) that interfered with their use and enjoyment of their property and sought injunctive relief.
- Defendant moved to strike; the trial court granted the motion as to the original and then amended complaints, concluding the amended complaint failed to allege essential nuisance elements and the municipal "affirmative act" requirement under General Statutes § 52-557n(a)(1)(C).
- On appeal, plaintiffs argued the town’s locating and constructing the parking lot satisfied the statute’s affirmative-act element and that the lot’s placement had a natural tendency to create danger, was unreasonable/unlawful, and proximately caused their injuries.
- The trial court and this panel held the pleadings were legally insufficient: a parking lot does not inherently have a natural tendency to create danger; the alleged use was not unreasonable or unlawful; and the complained-of harms were caused by third parties’ conduct, not by the town’s affirmative creation of a nuisance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the town’s siting/creation of a parking lot satisfies § 52-557n(a)(1)(C)’s affirmative-act requirement | Perry: Constructing and directing parking in that precise location is the affirmative act that created the nuisance | Town: The disruptive conduct was performed by third parties; the town’s siting/constructing the lot is not the act that created the nuisance | Held: No — plaintiffs failed to allege the town created or participated in creating the nuisance; harms traced to third parties |
| Whether the parking lot had a "natural tendency to create danger and inflict injury" | Perry: Placement adjacent to home produced dangerous conditions and injury risk | Town: A parking lot is not inherently dangerous in the way required by nuisance law | Held: No — a parking lot lacks the dangerous qualities required to meet this element |
| Whether the use of the land as a parking lot was "unreasonable or unlawful" | Perry: Placement adjacent to residence was unreasonable and zoning awareness implies harm | Town: Providing parking for municipal athletic facilities is a legitimate municipal function and lawful; zoning contemplates such adjacencies | Held: No — building a public parking lot near facilities is a reasonable, lawful municipal use |
| Whether plaintiffs alleged proximate causation between defendant’s acts and their injuries | Perry: The town’s actions proximate caused the disturbances | Town: The disturbances were caused by third-party conduct (criminal/antisocial acts), not the town’s acts | Held: No — complaint fails to show proximate cause by the town’s conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Picco v. Voluntown, 295 Conn. 141 (2010) (municipal nuisance requires municipality to positively act to create or participate in creation of the nuisance)
- Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn. 313 (2001) (describing essential elements of nuisance, including natural tendency to create danger)
- Cyr v. Brookfield, 153 Conn. 261 (1965) (land-use reasonableness weighed by utility of actor’s conduct vs. gravity of harm)
- Hoffman v. Bristol, 113 Conn. 386 (1931) (example of condition with natural tendency to create danger)
- Marchitto v. West Haven, 150 Conn. 432 (1963) (town dump considered hazardous nuisance adjacent to buildings)
- Filisko v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 176 Conn. 33 (1978) (landfill contamination as nuisance)