Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)

Citation
Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
Parent Document
Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (1988)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1988-09-27

Full Text

863 chars
Although we are cognizant of the principle that “[c]ourts must interpret statutes as they are written; Muha v. United Oil Co., 180 Conn. 720, 730, 433 A.2d 1009 (1980)”; Lucarelli v. State, 16 Conn. App. 65, 70, 546 A.2d 940 (1988); we are also bound by our duty to *448“ ‘avoid a consequence which fails to attain a rational and sensible result which bears most directly on the object which the legislature sought to obtain.’ ” Dukes v. Durante, 192 Conn. 207, 214, 471 A.2d 1368 (1984), quoting La Providenza v. State Employees Retirement Commission, 178 Conn. 23, 29, 420 A.2d 905 (1979). We do not believe that a literal definition of the word “repairs,” as urged by the defendants, yields a “rational and sensible result” when viewed in context with the other statutory provisions of our landlord and tenant law embodied in title 47a of the General Statutes.