Connecticut Court of Appeals, 1985

Ruhl v. Town of Fairfield

Connecticut Court of Appeals · Decided August 27, 1985

5 Conn. App. 104; 496 A.2d 994; 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 1109

Cases that cite this one

60 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Khan v. Ct Home Inspection Service, No. 32 30 76 (Oct. 17, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
Martino v. G M Excavating, Inc., No. Cv91-034924s (Feb. 3, 1993) (Connecticut Superior Court 1993)
Silitschanu v. Groesbeck (Conn. App. Ct. 1987)
Kowalsky Properties, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co. (Conn. App. Ct. 1986)
Ross v. Renzulli (Conn. App. Ct. 1986)
Landmark Builders, Inc. v. Brower, No. Cv95 0049114s (Mar. 23, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)
Nichols v. Clark, No. 277623 (Dec. 17, 1996) (Connecticut Superior Court 1996)
Dixon v. Kalinski, No. 30 56 79 (Feb. 27, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
Spahr v. Frank, No. Cv 91-0286470 S (Mar. 31, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
Elgar v. Probate Appeal, No. Cv910119720 (Feb. 9, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
Delta Leasing Services Corp. v. Gentile, No. Cv 88 0097669 (Mar. 1, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Garfunkel v. Coleman, No. Cv 93 0134358 (Nov. 8, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Kaslikowski v. Totilo Sons, Inc., No. Cv 93 0130220 (Apr. 12, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Gateway Bank v. J.T.'s Automotive, No. Cv 91 0118157 (Feb. 1, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Air Ex. Int'l v. Asia Buyfinders Int'l, No. Cv 91 0117926 (Nov. 23, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Stone v. Davis, No. Cv 89 0105533 (May 11, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Amtex, Inc. v. Zeger, No. Cv 91 0114947 (Feb. 9, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Gwinner v. Reelsharp USA, Inc., No. Cv 92 0123030 (Nov. 7, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Carsan Realty, Inc. v. Rose, No. 99824 (Apr. 29, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Craig v. Pia, No. Cv 91 0120916 (Oct. 18, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Martinovic v. Halloran, No. Cv 92 0123360 (Nov. 18, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Downes v. Vindheim, No. Cv 90 0109486 (Apr. 20, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Greenwich Federal Savings Loan v. Wu, No. Cv 91 0118739 (Apr. 6, 1993) (Connecticut Superior Court 1993)
Norwalk Twin Towers v. davidson/naylor, No. Cv 93 0131564 (Oct. 14, 1993) (Connecticut Superior Court 1993)
Van Dyke v. Riverside Plaza, Inc., No. Cv89 0101367 (Dec. 9, 1993) (Connecticut Superior Court 1993)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was injured while walking on Fairfield Beach Road in the town of Fairfield. He brought an action pursuant to General Statutes § 13a-149 against the defendant town of Fairfield for breach of its statutory duty to keep the public highway in repair. The case was referred to an attorney trial referee pursuant to General Statutes § 52-434 (a) (4). After trial, the attorney referee filed a report setting forth his findings and awarding damages to the plaintiff. The trial court rendered judgment accepting the report, from which the defendant appeals.

On this appeal, the defendant challenges two findings of the attorney trial referee: (1) that the road in question was a public highway by dedication; and (2) that the defects in the roadway were the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Proceedings before attorney state trial referees are governed by procedures set forth in Practice Book §§ 434 through 444. Upon the filing of the referee’s report, the defendant filed no motion to correct the findings as provided in § 438 of the Practice Book. Instead, the defendant filed a general objection to the trial court’s acceptance of the referee’s report pursuant to § 440 as being “contrary to the weight of law.”1

*106Neither issue raised on this appeal involves a question of law. Whether a road which has not been formally accepted by a town has become a public highway by dedication is a question of fact. Meder v. Milford, 190 Conn. 72, 75, 458 A.2d 1158 (1983); Meshberg v. Bridgeport City Trust Co., 180 Conn. 274, 279, 429 A.2d 865 (1980). Likewise, whether defects in a public roadway were the sole proximate cause of a plaintiffs injuries is a question of fact. Trzcinski v. Richey, 190 Conn. 285, 295, 460 A.2d 1269 (1983); Fukelman v. Middletown, 4 Conn. App. 30, 31, 492 A.2d 214 (1985).

Having filed no motion to correct any of the facts or to add further facts to those found by the attorney trial referee, the defendant has waived any right to attack the subordinate factual findings in the report. Harbor Construction Corporation v. D.V. Frione & Co., 158 Conn. 14, 255 A.2d 823 (1969). Absent a motion to correct and a subsequent exception to the report, the trial court, in ruling on the objection, was limited to determining whether the subordinate facts were sufficient to support the ultimate factual conclusions. Practice Book § 440. This court is limited to considering whether the “facts found and the conclusions reached in the report are adequate to support the judgments.” Harbor Construction Corporation v. D. V. Frione & Co., supra, 21. We find that they are.

There is no error.

This is the only indication this court has of the substance of the defendant’s objections since no transcript was filed of the July 16,1984 hearing before the trial court on the defendant’s objection to the acceptance of the report.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.