Governmental Immunity / Defective Highway Notice – Appellate Court Addresses Written Notice Requirement

The plaintiff fell through a defective drainage grate in the Pitkin Street Tunnel, a public roadway controlled by the city, and won at a court trial on her municipal defective highway claim under § 13a‑149. On appeal, the city attacked jurisdiction, arguing there was no proof it ever actually received the statutory written notice. The trial court had treated the city’s answer—“Denied as to the sufficiency of notice”—as a judicial admission that notice was received and found the plaintiff had proved notice was timely. The Appellate Court reversed. It held that this pleading was not a binding admission of receipt; it merely contested the sufficiency of whatever notice might have been given. The court also emphasized the strict jurisdictional nature of the notice requirement: the plaintiff bears the burden to prove that notice was delivered to, and actually received by, the city clerk or selectman within ninety days. A copy of a letter and speculation about what may have happened in the clerk’s office were not enough, especially where the clerk testified that the office had “no record of receiving this” and explained the standard process for logging and routing notices. Because there was no evidence of actual receipt, the city’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should have been granted. Te answer was not “a voluntary and knowing concession” that timely notice was filed, and “[w]hen a plaintiff fails to comply with the notice requirements of § 13a‑149, the trial court lack[s] subject matter jurisdiction.” Vance v. New Haven, AC 47695 (Conn. App. Ct. Dec. 16, 2025).