Connecticut General Statutes
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-566 (2025)
Treble damages for wilful removal or destruction of bridge
✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who wilfully removes or destroys any part of any bridge, or of its approaches, shall pay treble damages to the owner thereof or to the party bound to maintain it.
(1949 Rev., S. 8307; P.A. 82-160, S. 233.)
History: P.A. 82-160 made minor change in wording.
See Secs. 53a-115 to 53a-117a, inclusive, re criminal mischief.
Is constitutional. 82 C. 5. Not a penal statute. 87 C. 468. Owned construed to include truck loaned to state by federal government. 163 C. 576. Requirement and definition of “wilfulness” discussed. 189 C. 671.
Cited. 43 CA 1.
| (Return to Chapter Table of Contents) |
(Return to List of Chapters) |
(Return to List of Titles) |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1983–2016 · leading case: DeMilo v. City of West Haven, 458 A.2d 362 (Conn. 1983).
DeMilo v. City of West Haven, 458 A.2d 362 (Conn. 1983). “In this appeal the defendant, the city of West Haven (city), is challenging the propriety of the trial court's order assessing treble damages against it pursuant to General Statutes § 52-566. [1] By way of a cross appeal, the plaintiffs have raised a number of issues.”
Tomick v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 153 A.3d 615 (Conn. 2016). “Thus, in DeMilo , a general verdict relative to a complaint with common-law and statutory claims could not justify an award of treble damages for the destruction of a bridge under General Statutes § 52-566 when the record did not "clearly" show that "the jury found the damages…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.