204 Conn.App. 187
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Plaintiff tripped and fell on a raised, uneven public sidewalk in Bridgeport adjacent to 82 Cole Street and sued the city and Seaside Village Homes, Inc. (Seaside) for negligence and nuisance.
- During discovery an engineer (retained by Seaside) lifted the sidewalk flag and discovered a large tree root beneath the slab emanating from a tree on Seaside property.
- Seaside moved for summary judgment arguing municipalities (not abutting landowners) have the duty to repair sidewalks and that the natural growth of tree roots is not an affirmative act creating liability.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Seaside on the negligence and nuisance counts; plaintiff appealed.
- The Appellate Court affirmed: no duty was owed by Seaside under the circumstances, the growth of roots is not an affirmative act, and Seaside did not maintain an unreasonable use of its land.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Seaside owed a duty in negligence for a sidewalk defect caused by tree roots | Pollard: Seaside caused the defect by virtue of the tree on its property and the court should adopt Restatement rule imposing care for trees | Seaside: Duty to maintain sidewalks rests with the city; natural root growth is not an affirmative act; no statute shifts responsibility | Held: No duty as a matter of law; SJ affirmed — roots’ natural growth is not an affirmative act creating liability |
| Whether Seaside maintained a nuisance that caused the defect | Pollard: The tree/use created a continuing danger and was unreasonable, so Seaside maintained a nuisance | Seaside: Sidewalk is within city control/right-of-way; no affirmative act; tree presence is not unreasonable or unlawful use | Held: No nuisance as a matter of law; SJ affirmed |
| Whether Restatement (Second) of Torts §363 should apply to impose liability for tree conditions | Pollard: Court should follow §363 and impose possessor liability for tree-related sidewalk hazards | Seaside: Connecticut precedent rejects imposing such broad possessor duty absent affirmative acts or statute | Held: Court declined to adopt §363 here and declined to expand Connecticut law to hold abutting owners liable for hidden root-caused defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenney v. Pleasant Realty Corp., 136 Conn. 325, 70 A.2d 138 (Conn. 1949) (abutting landowner ordinarily has no duty to keep public sidewalk in safe condition)
- Wilson v. New Haven, 213 Conn. 277, 567 A.2d 829 (Conn. 1989) (reiterating municipal duty to maintain sidewalks and general nonliability of abutting owners)
- Ryszkiewicz v. New Britain, 193 Conn. 589, 479 A.2d 793 (Conn. 1984) (town/city duty to keep highways and sidewalks in repair)
- Kane v. New Idea Realty Co., 104 Conn. 508, 133 A. 686 (Conn. 1926) (landowner liable where affirmative act caused hazardous condition on sidewalk)
- Gambardella v. Kaoud, 38 Conn. App. 355, 660 A.2d 877 (Conn. App. 1995) (liability where abutter’s positive acts create unsafe sidewalk condition)
- Abramczyk v. Abbey, 64 Conn. App. 442, 780 A.2d 957 (Conn. App. 2001) (affirmative-act exception to general nonliability rule)
- McDermott v. Calvary Baptist Church, 263 Conn. 378, 819 A.2d 795 (Conn. 2003) (duty to inspect trees for visible decay that foreseeably endangers others)
- Robinson v. Cianfarani, 314 Conn. 521, 107 A.3d 375 (Conn. 2014) (owners not generally liable for defects in public sidewalks abutting their land)