Court Opinion

ID: 9695985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:32:58.951865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:17.773962
License: Public Domain

Brown, C. J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the complaint in the first action constituted sufficient notice under §2201 of the General Statutes. The plaintiff’s right of recov*559ery was purely statutory, and no cause of action existed unless and until notice was given within the sixty days prescribed by the statute. State v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 138 Conn. 363, 367, 84 A.2d 683. It is because I ain unable to accept the majority’s interpretation of the meaning of “notice” as used in the statute that I dissent.
There are two reasons for the statute’s requirement as to notice in any action to recover for injuries due to a highway defect, whether against a town or the state. We have several times reiterated what they are. As to the commissioner, the notice is to give him “such warning as would prompt him to make such inquiries as he might deem necessary or prudent for the preservation of his interests, and such information as would furnish him a reasonable guide in the conduct of such inquiries, and in obtaining such information as he might deem helpful for his protection.” Cassidy v. Southbury, 86 Conn. 45, 49, 82 A. 198; Nicholaus v. Bridgeport, 117 Conn. 398, 400, 167 A. 826; Christian v. Waterbury, 123 Conn. 152, 155, 193 A. 602; Morico v. Cox, 134 Conn. 218, 223, 56 A.2d 522; see also Delaney v. Waterbury & Milldale Tramway Co., 91 Conn. 177, 181, 99 A. 503; Krooner v. Waterbury, 105 Conn. 476, 481, 136 A. 93; Marino v. East Haven, 120 Conn. 577, 579, 182 A. 225; Flynn v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 131 Conn. 430, 433, 40 A.2d 770; Shaw v. Waterbury, 46 Conn. 263, 266. It was as requiring these essentials and not in a technical sense that the legislature used the word “notice” in the statute. As the majority opinion correctly states, “whether the service of the original complaint was a notice within the statute is to be determined with reference to the purpose for which the giving of notice is required.”
The language quoted from the Cassidy case, supra, *560makes it clear that under it the requisite notice serves a dual purpose, (1) to prompt the commissioner to make the inquiry deemed necessary for the protection of his interests, and (2) to afford the information reasonably necessary to enable him to make inquiry to that end. Both are essential to a valid notice. In the case at bar, it is not disputed that the allegations of the complaint in the original action satisfied the second essential. It is equally apparent that it did not satisfy the first. At the time the process in that action was served on the commissioner he had received no notice. He therefore knew that under the law the claim asserted by the plaintiff’s complaint was unenforceable. This was confirmed by the express allegation in paragraph 8 thereof that no notice had been given him because “this complaint is being served . . . within sixty days of the date of the accident.” This course of action not only failed to “prompt” the commissioner to make inquiry for the preservation and protection of his interests but amounted to an assurance that he had no occasion to do so. It therefore defeated a primary and essential purpose of the notice which the statute expressly prescribes must be given. Knowledge imparted through notice which fails to portend at least potential liability cannot satisfy the statute. See Nicholaus v. Bridgeport, supra, 401; Crocker v. Hartford, 66 Conn. 387, 391, 34 A. 98; Gardner v. New London, 63 Conn. 267, 273, 28 A. 42.
Since in the instant ease the question is presented solely on the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint in the second action, the record does not disclose whether and to what extent the commissioner has been prejudiced by lack of the sufficient notice which the statute requires. The pertinent dates, however, *561suffice to suggest not only the potential prejudice which may have resulted in this case but also the danger of applying the majority’s interpretation in other cases. This accident occurred on August 21, 1951. The first action was instituted and presumably served on the defendant on October 9, 1951. That action was withdrawn and the present action was served on the defendant on February 5, 1952. Although it was on that date, 168 instead of 60 days after the accident, that the defendant was first notified, as required by the cases cited above, of the need of making inquiry to protect himself, the notice would satisfy the statute under the majority’s decision. To my mind, to state such a proposition is to refute it.
I conclude that the process in the first action did not constitute notice under the statute and that the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint.