Costanzo v. Plainfield
Citations
- 344 Conn. 86
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 52-572h (o)), there shall be no apportionment claims between a party liable for negligence and a party liable on any basis other than negligence, including ''liability pursuant to any cause of action created by statute, except that liability may be apportioned among par- ties liable for negligence in any cause of action created by statute based on negligence . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 52-557n (b)), ''a political subdivision of the state or any employee, officer or agent acting within the scope of his employment or official duties shall not be liable for damages to person 3 The parties agreed to waive oral argument and to have this appeal decided on the basis of the record and briefs. 344 Conn. 86 JULY, 2022 87 Costanzo v. Plainfield or property resulting from . . . (8) failure to make an inspection or making an inadequate or negligent inspection of any property . . . to determine whether the property complies with or violates any law or contains a hazard to health or safety, unless the political subdivision had notice of such a violation of law or such a hazard . . . .'' The named plaintiff, as the administratrix of her daughter's estate, sought to recover damages from the defendants, a town and two of its employ- ees, in connection with her daughter's drowning in a privately owned swimming pool. The plaintiff was a tenant of the property on which the incident occurred. The pool did not have a self-closing and self-latching gate or a pool alarm, both of which were required by the state building code. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the defendants had issued a building permit for the pool prior to inspecting it to ensure that the mandated safety features were installed. The defendants thereafter filed a notice of intent to seek apportionment of liability against the owners of the property and an apportionment complaint against the former tenants of the property, who had the pool constructed. The plaintiff objected to the d
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘[i]t is a well settled principle of statutory construction that the legislature knows how to convey its intent expressly’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Cochran v. Dept. of TransportationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-12-24· cited 10×
- Wang (Health Body World Supply, Inc. v.)Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-09-09· cited 4×
- Stamford v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, Office of Public HearingsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-02-25· cited 2×
- Centrix Management Co., LLC v. FosbergSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-07-18· cited 1×
- In re Jewelyette M.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-03-21· cited 1×
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. CurcioSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1983-08-09· cited 442×
- Elliott v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-07-14· cited 222×
- Bhinder v. Sun Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-08-11· cited 87×
- Grady v. Town of SomersSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-12-22· cited 82×
- American National Fire Insurance v. SchussSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-04-28· cited 82×
- Allard v. Liberty Oil Equipment Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-07-25· cited 49×
- Baptiste v. Better Val-U Supermarket, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-12-10· cited 41×
- Borelli v. RenaldiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-06-24· cited 24×
- Riccio v. HARBOUR VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM ASS'NSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-02-06· cited 20×
- Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-01-25· cited 20×
- Stratford Police Dept. v. Board of Firearms Permit ExaminersSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-04-26· cited 19×
- Williams v. Hous. Auth. of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2017-12-26· cited 17×
- Saunders v. KDFBS, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-05-18· cited 17×
- Halladay v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-08-05· cited 15×
- Rockstone Capital, LLC v. SanzoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-07-16· cited 6×
- Costanzo v. PlainfieldConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-10-13· cited 1×
Other cases named Costanzo v. Plainfield
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.