Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)

Citation: Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
Parent Document: Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1988-07-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7893244/gordon-v-bridgeport-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

2,006 chars

The plaintiff filed a four count complaint against the various defendants. The first count alleges that the BHA and the city of Bridgeport were negligent in managing and in providing security to the housing project. It also alleges that the BHA, operating in its capacity as managing agent for the city, is guilty of gross mishandling and misappropriation of funds. The second count names the individual members of the housing authority as defendants and alleges theories of negligence similar to those asserted in the first count. Neither the first nor the second count is the subject of this appeal. The third count names Paoletta and the city as defendants while the fourth count names Walsh, the police department and the city as defendants. The essence of the third and fourth counts of the complaint, referring to a “Cooperation Agreement” between the BHA and the city concerning the providing of the “usual municipal services” to the project, is that the defendants negligently created a condition conducive to crime and failed to provide adequate security at the housing project. It is also alleged that the foregoing breaches violated General Statutes § 47a-7 (a) (2) and (3)1 (duty of a landlord to keep premises in a safe and *164habitable condition) and General Statutes § 47a-54d2 (duty of a landlord to maintain interior lighting). The defendant city filed a motion to strike counts three and four of the complaint on the ground that the city and its employees owed no duty to Navarette. The trial court, Ripley, J., granted the motion to strike, holding that the defendant city et al. owed no duty to provide police protection to Navarette, because he was an unidentifiable person within the meaning of Shore v. Stonington, 187 Conn. 147, 444 A.2d 1379 (1982). The trial court’s memorandum of decision also found that the city had no duty to maintain lights and other security devices because the BHA is an independent body “corporate and politic” and therefore is not an agency of the city.

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text