314 Conn. 521
Conn.2014Background
- Plaintiff slipped on ice on a public sidewalk abutting defendants’ property and was injured.
- The sidewalk was owned by the town of Enfield; Enfield ordinances (adopted pre-§7-163a) required abutting owners to remove snow/ice and prescribed fines for noncompliance.
- Plaintiff sued defendants for negligence for failing to clear the sidewalk; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the ordinances do not impose civil liability on private owners.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, reasoning Enfield’s ordinance imposes only a penalty to the municipality and does not shift civil liability to abutters (relying on Willoughby).
- Plaintiff conceded ordinances do not mirror General Statutes §7-163a but argued alternative negligence theories (common-law duty, affirmative acts, negligence per se) could impose liability.
- Supreme Court affirmed: absent an ordinance/statute like §7-163a or allegations that defendants created/controlled the dangerous condition, abutting owners owe no duty to sidewalk users and are not civilly liable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Enfield ordinance imposing fines for failure to clear sidewalks shifts civil liability to abutting landowners | Robinson argued the duty imposed by the ordinance supports civil liability (or that other theories supply liability) | Defendants argued the ordinance only creates a municipal enforcement duty/fine and does not transfer civil liability to owners | Court held ordinance does not shift civil liability; Willoughby controls and Enfield did not adopt §7-163a language |
| Whether alternative negligence theories (possession/control, affirmative creation of hazard, negligence per se) make defendants liable | Robinson argued defendants may be liable under common-law duty if they controlled or created the hazardous condition or under negligence per se | Defendants noted plaintiff alleged only failure to remove existing ice on public sidewalk, not possession/control or creation; ordinance imposes duty to municipality only | Court held no liability: plaintiff did not allege possession/control or affirmative creation; common-law rule applies that abutters owe no duty absent statute/ordinance adopting §7-163a or allegations of creation/control |
Key Cases Cited
- Willoughby v. New Haven, 123 Conn. 446 (1937) (ordinance imposing penalty for not clearing sidewalks does not shift civil liability to abutting landowners)
- Stevens v. Neligon, 116 Conn. 307 (1933) (duty to remove snow/ice under ordinance is owed to municipality; ordinance cannot cast civil liability on property owner for traveler’s injury)
- Wilson v. New Haven, 213 Conn. 277 (1989) (reiterates common-law rule that abutting landowner ordinarily owes no duty to keep public sidewalk reasonably safe absent statute/ordinance)