Superior Court ruled that a failure to include the full name of one of the streets at the location of an alleged defect in the roadway did not constitute a failure to provide proper notice of an intention to file a claim against the state.

The plaintiff served a standard notice, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 13a-144, to set aside the state’s sovereign immunity with regard to a defect on state highways or sidewalks that allegedly caused a person to be injured. The plaintiff’s notice provided numerous details about the location in question but erroneously referred to the “intersection of Main Street and Center Street” when, in actuality, North Main Street turned into South Main Street at the location of Center Street. The notice, however, included numerous contextual details that the court determined “reasonably” provided notice to the state to identify the location in question that was the subject of the plaintiff’s notice. The court, therefore, sustained the notice and denied the state’s application.

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}