Getting the plaintiff his day in court
In State v. Boykin, 179 Conn. App. 175 (2018), Horton, Dowd, Bartschi & Levesque represented the plaintiff who sought to reverse the dismissal of his defective highway personal injury action against the State.
Specifically, the notice provided that the plaintiff
was injured due to the negligence State of Connecticut
Department of Transportation, who failed to place a pedestrian
cross walk button at the intersection of East Main St, and I-95,
Bridgeport, CT, failed to inspect the pedestrian crossing, failed
to repair the pedestrian cross walk button and failed to provide
a safe pedestrian cross walk for pedestrians such as the
The trial court dismissed the case because it found that the written notice did not provide sufficient notice of the cause of the alleged injuries.
The Appellate Court reversed, holding that “the plaintiff’s notice provided sufficient information as to the cause of his injury to permit the commissioner to gather information about the case intelligently and, therefore, was not patently defective.” Id. at 181. The Court distinguished this case from Frandy v. Commissioner of Transportation, 132 Conn. App. 750, 752 (2011), cert. denied, 303 Conn. 937 (2012), in which the notice, which referred to “injuries caused as a result of the defective condition of the pavement,” was deemed insufficient.
In Boykin, the notice put the State on notice that the claimed defect was “the condition of the crosswalk, namely, the condition or absence of a crosswalk button at the intersection.” 179 Conn. App. at 184. The Court focused on whether that notice provided sufficient information to inform the defendant of the potential claim such that it could perform an investigation to protect its interests. Concluding that it did, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Attorneys Brendon P. Levesque and Scott T. Garosshen represented the plaintiff in Boykin.