A Connecticut state court has dismissed part of the claim of a boy and his parents, who sued the City of Bridgeport, the Bridgeport Bluefish Baseball Club and other defendants after the boy fell on the bleachers during a baseball game and consequently suffered injuries.
In so ruling, the court found that the “condition” of the stairs did not qualify as “a public nuisance” and that none of the defendants’ employees contributed by their actions to the “condition” of the stairs.
The incident occurred on April 25, 2009, when Hunter Stolze, a minor, was walking inside the Ballpark at Harbor Yard and fell on the bleachers. As a result of the fall, he claimed to have sustained a laceration above his right eye, which required stitches to close, and continues to suffer headaches and dizziness.
The plaintiffs sued on September 14, 2011, alleging that Hunter’s fall was “caused by a dangerous and defective condition. They maintain that the stairs were in a deteriorated condition, and were wet.”
The City of Bridgeport was named as a defendant in the first two-counts of the four-count complaint. “Count one claimed that the City of Bridgeport ‘owned, maintained and/or controlled’ the property in a negligent manner,” wrote the court. “Count two claimed that the condition existing on April 25, 2009 constituted a nuisance which was created by agents or employees of the City of Bridgeport.
“Counts three and four were directed against the remaining defendants — Get Hooked, LLC, Past Time Partners, LLC, and the Bridgeport Bluefish Baseball Club. The plaintiffs claimed that the three named defendants were in control of the property where the minor plaintiff fell. Count three claimed that the defendants were negligent, while count four alleged that the wet and deteriorated condition of the stairs constituted a public nuisance.”
All of the defendants moved to strike counts two and four, which alleged a claim of public nuisance.
The court noted that in order to succeed in a nuisance cause of action, “a plaintiff must prove four elements: 1) the condition complained of had a natural tendency to create danger and to inflict injury upon persons or property, 2) the danger created was a continuing one, 3) the use of the land was unreasonable or unlawful, and 4) the existence of the nuisance was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Burton v. Dominion Nuclear Co., 300 Conn. 542, 561-62, 23 A.3d 1176 (2001); Pestey v. Cushman, 259 Conn. 345, 355, 788 A.2d 496 (2002).
“In addition, when the alleged tortfeasor is a municipality, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant, by some positive act, created the condition constituting the nuisance. Wright v. Brown, 167 Conn. 464, 470, 356 A.2d 176 (1975). This common-law rule has been codified, in S. 52-557n(a)(1)(C) of the General Statutes. The statute reads:
“’Except as otherwise provided by law, a political subdivision of the state shall be liable for damage to person or property caused by: . . . (C) acts of the political subdivision which constitute the creation or participation in the creation of a nuisance . . .’”
The court went on to note that “typical examples of public nuisances are pollution and obstruction of waterways, air and noise pollution, maintenance of a fire or explosion hazzard, obstruction of safe travel on a public highway, and maintenance of a junk yard or dump. Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn. 313, 369, 780 A.2d 98 (2001).”
The plaintiffs’ main argument was that “because the Ballpark at Harbor Yard was open to the public, the condition on the stairs may constitute a public nuisance.”
The court disagreed. “Here, the minor plaintiff and his parents were patrons at a minor league baseball stadium, owned by the City of Bridgeport, and leased to the remaining defendants. One who enters premises, in response to an express or implied invitation, does not come upon the premises in the exercise of a public right. Webel v. Yale University, 125 Conn. 515, 524, 7 A.2d 215 (1939).
“The plaintiffs were not exercising a right common to the general public at the time of the April 25, 2009 mishap. They had paid the price of admission to a baseball stadium, which was being used as an entertainment venue. The situation is not analogous to that of citizens using the public park for recreational activities, or suffering injury as a result of a dangerous condition located in an area open to unrestricted public travel.
“Furthermore, because no specific positive act by municipal employees is alleged to have created the ‘wet and deteriorated condition,’ the motion to strike as to the City of Bridgeport must also be granted on that basis. Picco v. Town of Voluntown, 295 Conn. 141, 146, 989 A.2d 593 (2010).”
Hunter Stolze et al. v. City of Bridgeport et al.; Super. Ct. Conn.; CV116019137S, 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 404; 2/7/12
