Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Grimes v. Housing Authority, 242 Conn. 236 (1997)

Citation
Grimes v. Housing Authority, 242 Conn. 236 (1997)
Parent Document
Grimes v. Housing Authority, 242 Conn. 236 (1997)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1997-07-29

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text

1,277 chars
In both the Connelly class action and the present case, the facts relating to the defendant’s conduct and the establishment of the breach of duty are the same. The Connelly plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in this case had a right to services, including reasonable amounts of hot water at all times, and reasonable heat. General Statutes § 47a-7 (a); paragraph 300 of the New Haven housing code. Both alleged that they suffered harm as a result of the defendant’s continuing failure to provide sufficient and stable hot water for its tenants. Presumably, the plaintiffs will probably attempt to show at trial that the violation of statutorily prescribed duties under § 4-7a-7 (a) and paragraph 300 of the New Haven housing code constituted negligence per se.10 Likewise, the Con*248nelly plaintiffs will probably attempt to show that their injuries arose in part out of the failure to supply hot water pursuant to § 47a-7 (a) and paragraph 300 of the New Haven housing code. Because the plaintiffs did not present the defendant with an “ ‘entirely new and different factual situation’ Sharp v. Mitchell, 209 Conn. 59, 71-72, 546 A.2d 846 (1988); the defendant was put on notice by the Connelly complaint of the nature of the evidence that would be needed at the plaintiffs’ trial.