Hohorst v. Easton

Summary

The Connecticut Appellate Court reviewed summary judgments entered for the Town of Easton and Aquarion Water Company in a homeowner’s negligence and nuisance action arising from flooding. The court affirmed judgment for the town on the negligence claim and for Aquarion, but reversed judgment for the town on the nuisance claim because genuine issues remained regarding whether the town affirmatively created or participated in creating the nuisance and because it waived its statute of limitations defense. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the nuisance claim against the town.

Holdings

1. The town was entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claim because, absent a charter provision, ordinance, regulation, rule, policy, or other directive prescribing the manner of maintaining the drainage system, the town's maintenance duty was discretionary and fell within governmental immunity.
2. The town was not entitled to summary judgment on the nuisance claim on governmental-immunity grounds because the record presented a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the town, by a positive act, created or participated in creating the nuisance.
3. The town waived its statute-of-limitations defense to the nuisance claim by failing to plead it as a special defense; therefore, summary judgment could not be sustained on the alternative ground that the claim was barred by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577.
4. Aquarion was entitled to summary judgment because the record contained no genuine issue of material fact that its conduct contributed to the flooding of the plaintiff's property.
5. The court declined to review the denial of the plaintiff's motion for reargument or reconsideration concerning Aquarion because Aquarion was properly granted summary judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the town was entitled to governmental immunity on the plaintiff's negligence claim because the town's maintenance of storm-drain easements and drainage infrastructure was discretionary rather than ministerial.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on the plaintiff's nuisance claim against the town where the pleadings and evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the town, by a positive act, created or participated in creating the nuisance.
3. Whether the town waived its statute-of-limitations defense to the nuisance claim by failing to plead that defense as a special defense.
4. Whether Aquarion was entitled to summary judgment because the evidence showed no genuine issue of material fact as to whether its conduct contributed to the flooding.
5. Whether the appellate court should review the denial of the plaintiff's motion for reargument or reconsideration concerning Aquarion's summary judgment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded