public nuisance claim in Connecticut

1998In Dahlstrom v. Roosevelt Mills, Inc. , 27 Conn. Sup. 355 , 238 A.2d 431 (1967), the plaintiff, a patron in the defendant's store, claimed that the condition of a soft drink vending machine in the store constituted a nuisance.

1998In Dahlstrom v. Roosevelt Mills, Inc. , 27 Conn. Sup. 355 , 238 A.2d 431 (1967), the plaintiff, a patron in the defendant's store, claimed that the condition of a soft drink vending machine in the store constituted a nuisance.

1999Rather the person is entering as a visitor. . . .the visitor cannot recover on a public nuisance claim." Stewart v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., Id., 69 citing Webel v. Yale University, 125 Conn. 515 , 514-25 (1939).

1995In order to prevail on a public nuisance claim, the plaintiff must prove, in addition to the four requirements for private nuisance, "that the condition or conduct complained of interfered with a right common to the general public." Doe v. Manheimer, 212 Conn. 748 , 755-56 n. 4, 563 A.2d 699 (1989); Couture v. Board of Education, supra, 6 Conn. App. 316 ; Higgins v. Connecticut Light Power Co., supra, 611.

1999Rather the person is entering as a visitor. . . .the visitor cannot recover on a public nuisance claim." Stewart v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., Id., 69 citing Webel v. Yale University, 125 Conn. 515 , 514-25 (1939).

1993Rptr. 67 (May 17, 1991, Lewis, J.), citing Webel v. Yale University, 125 Conn. 515 , 524-525 , 7 A.2d 215 (1939); and Dahlstrom v. Roosevelt Mills, Inc., 27 Conn. Sup. 355 , 357 , 238 A.2d 431 (1967).

2001The court agrees with the plaintiffs that there is a genuine issue of material fact under this element of the public nuisance claim because the court cannot decide as a matter of law that the condition did not have a natural tendency to create danger and inflict physical injury or was not inherently dangerous. "`A nuisance . . . describes an inherently dangerous condition that has a natural tendency to inflict injury upon persons or property.' Quinnett v. Newman, 213 Conn. 343 , 348 , 568 A.2d 786 (1990).

2001The court agrees with the plaintiffs that there is a genuine issue of material fact under this element of the public nuisance claim because the court cannot decide as a matter of law that the condition did not have a natural tendency to create danger and inflict physical injury or was not inherently dangerous. "`A nuisance . . . describes an inherently dangerous condition that has a natural tendency to inflict injury upon persons or property.' Quinnett v. Newman, 213 Conn. 343 , 348 , 568 A.2d 786 (1990).

1994Doe v. Manheimer, 212 Conn. 748 , 755-56 n. 4; Couture v. Board of Education, supra, 316 ; Higgins v. Connecticut Light Power Co., supra, 611.

1992Doe v. Manheimer, 212 Conn. 748 , 755-556 n. 4; Couture v. Board of Education, supra, 316 ; Higgins v. Connecticut Light Power Co., supra, 611.

2025With respect to count four, the defendant argued that ‘‘a premises owner has no duty to prevent an intoxicated person from leaving the premises and causing an acci- dent off the premises.’’ With respect to count five, the defendant also argued that there was no cognizable duty supporting a public nuisance claim and that ‘‘the type of nuisance alleged [could not] as a matter of law, be considered the ‘proximate cause’ of a drunk driving accident off the premises.’’ The defendant argued that the claims asserted in counts four and five were pre- cluded by our Supreme Court’s decision in Demond v.

2025With respect to count four, the defendant argued that ‘‘a premises owner has no duty to prevent an intoxicated person from leaving the premises and causing an acci- dent off the premises.’’ With respect to count five, the defendant also argued that there was no cognizable duty supporting a public nuisance claim and that ‘‘the type of nuisance alleged [could not] as a matter of law, be considered the ‘proximate cause’ of a drunk driving accident off the premises.’’ The defendant argued that the claims asserted in counts four and five were pre- cluded by our Supreme Court’s decision in Demond v.

2001A public nuisance claim, as opposed to a private nuisance claim, contains the additional element that "the condition or conduct complained of interferes with a right common to the general public." Keeney v. Old Saybrook, 237 Conn. 135 , 163 , 676 A.2d 795 (1996); State v. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, 204 Conn. 177 , 183 , 527 A.2d 688 (1987).

2001A public nuisance claim, as opposed to a private nuisance claim, contains the additional element that "the condition or conduct complained of interferes with a right common to the general public." Keeney v. Old Saybrook, 237 Conn. 135 , 163 , 676 A.2d 795 (1996); State v. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, 204 Conn. 177 , 183 , 527 A.2d 688 (1987).

2001Compare, e.g., Keeney v. Old Saybrook, 239 Conn. 786, 790 , 686 A.2d 991 (1997) (pollution of groundwater and Connecticut River resulting from malfunctioning septic systems constituted public nuisance); Balf Co. v. Hartford Electric Light Co., 106 Conn. 315, 322-23 , 138 A. 122 (1927) (conduit connecting two properties, which was constructed over river and which barred all navigation, constituted public nuisance); Platt Bros. & Co. v. Water bury, 80 Conn. 179, 182 , 67 A. 508 (1907) (discharge of city sewage into stream constituted public nuisance).

2001Compare, e.g., Keeney v. Old Saybrook, 239 Conn. 786, 790 , 686 A.2d 991 (1997) (pollution of groundwater and Connecticut River resulting from malfunctioning septic systems constituted public nuisance); Balf Co. v. Hartford Electric Light Co., 106 Conn. 315, 322-23 , 138 A. 122 (1927) (conduit connecting two properties, which was constructed over river and which barred all navigation, constituted public nuisance); Platt Bros. & Co. v. Water bury, 80 Conn. 179, 182 , 67 A. 508 (1907) (discharge of city sewage into stream constituted public nuisance).

2001Compare, e.g., Keeney v. Old Saybrook, 239 Conn. 786, 790 , 686 A.2d 991 (1997) (pollution of groundwater and Connecticut River resulting from malfunctioning septic systems constituted public nuisance); Balf Co. v. Hartford Electric Light Co., 106 Conn. 315, 322-23 , 138 A. 122 (1927) (conduit connecting two properties, which was constructed over river and which barred all navigation, constituted public nuisance); Platt Bros. & Co. v. Water bury, 80 Conn. 179, 182 , 67 A. 508 (1907) (discharge of city sewage into stream constituted public nuisance).

2001Compare, e.g., Keeney v. Old Saybrook, 239 Conn. 786, 790 , 686 A.2d 991 (1997) (pollution of groundwater and Connecticut River resulting from malfunctioning septic systems constituted public nuisance); Balf Co. v. Hartford Electric Light Co., 106 Conn. 315, 322-23 , 138 A. 122 (1927) (conduit connecting two properties, which was constructed over river and which barred all navigation, constituted public nuisance); Platt Bros. & Co. v. Water bury, 80 Conn. 179, 182 , 67 A. 508 (1907) (discharge of city sewage into stream constituted public nuisance).

2001A public nuisance claim, as opposed to a private nuisance claim, contains the additional element that "the condition or conduct complained of interferes with a right common to the general public." Keeney v. Old Saybrook, 237 Conn. 135 , 163 , 676 A.2d 795 (1996); State v. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, 204 Conn. 177 , 183 , 527 A.2d 688 (1987).

2001A public nuisance claim, as opposed to a private nuisance claim, contains the additional element that "the condition or conduct complained of interferes with a right common to the general public." Keeney v. Old Saybrook, 237 Conn. 135 , 163 , 676 A.2d 795 (1996); State v. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, 204 Conn. 177 , 183 , 527 A.2d 688 (1987).

1992See Stewart v. Federated Department Stores, supra, 85; Higgins v. Connecticut Light and Power Co., 129 Conn. 606 , 611 , 30 A.2d 388 (1943).

1992See Stewart v. Federated Department Stores, supra, 85; Higgins v. Connecticut Light and Power Co., 129 Conn. 606 , 611 , 30 A.2d 388 (1943).

1907J.) ( 7 CSCR 520 ), for the proposition that a plaintiff can sufficiently raise a public nuisance claim by alleging facts demonstrating that the conditions complained of interfered with a right common to the general public.