Genco v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.
7 Conn. App. 164, 508 A.2d 58, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 942 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Connecticut's recreational use statute (General Statutes § 52-557g), an owner of land who makes it available to the public without charge for recreational purposes is immune from negligence and nuisance claims unless the injury is caused by willful or malicious conduct, and this immunity is constitutional.
Facts:
- The Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL&P) owns Candlewood Lake, a large, man-made lake in southwestern Connecticut.
- Candlewood Lake is extensively used for recreational activities, including swimming, diving, boating, and fishing, and is accessible to the general public through various means such as a state park, municipal beaches, and marinas.
- CL&P does not charge users directly for access to or use of Candlewood Lake for recreational purposes.
- Municipalities and marinas lease portions of the lake's perimeter from CL&P and charge their patrons small fees to cover maintenance and operational costs for facility use, not for lake entry itself.
- Laura Lee Genco suffered serious personal injuries when she dove into Candlewood Lake and struck its bottom.
- Genco alleged that CL&P was negligent for failing to maintain a safe water level and adequately warn users, and also claimed the company maintained a nuisance.
Procedural Posture:
- Laura Lee Genco initiated an action by complaint in two counts, negligence and nuisance, against Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL&P) in the trial court (implicitly the Superior Court of Connecticut).
- CL&P moved for summary judgment on both counts, asserting immunity under General Statutes § 52-557g.
- The trial court granted CL&P's motion for summary judgment, holding that General Statutes § 52-557g afforded CL&P immunity on both the negligence and nuisance counts and that the statute was constitutional.
- Laura Lee Genco appealed the granting of summary judgment to the Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Connecticut General Statutes § 52-557g provide immunity to a landowner from negligence and nuisance claims arising from injuries sustained by a recreational user on land made publicly available without direct charge, even if third parties charge fees for access to facilities on leased land, and is the statute constitutional?
Opinions:
Majority - Daly, J.
Yes, Connecticut General Statutes § 52-557g provides immunity to Connecticut Light and Power Company from negligence and nuisance claims under these circumstances, and the statute is constitutional. The court concluded that CL&P met the requirements of § 52-557g(a) as an owner of land made available to the public without charge for recreational purposes. The court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding public availability, despite some access points requiring trespass or signs restricting use in dangerous areas. The legislative intent behind the statute is to encourage private landowners to open their land to public use by limiting their liability, thereby satisfying the public's need for recreational space. The court clarified that fees charged by intermediaries, such as marinas or municipal beaches leasing land from CL&P, do not constitute "charges" by the owner under the statute, as "charge" is defined as an admission price or fee directly from the owner for permission to enter the land. The statute's broad language, referring generally to "duty of care" and "liability for injury," was held to extend immunity to nuisance claims, as recovery is only authorized for "wilful or malicious failure to guard or warn." Finally, the court upheld the statute's constitutionality against equal protection, right to redress (Article First, § 10), and separation of powers challenges, finding it rationally related to a legitimate government purpose and a reasonable exercise of legislative power to redefine the scope of actionable injury.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens and solidifies the scope of immunity provided by Connecticut's recreational use statute, reinforcing the policy goal of encouraging private landowners to open their property for public recreation. It provides crucial clarity on what constitutes a 'charge' under the statute, ensuring that indirect fees collected by third-party intermediaries do not negate an owner's immunity. The ruling also firmly establishes that the statutory immunity extends to both negligence and nuisance claims, unless willful or malicious conduct is present, and affirms the constitutionality of such legislative limits on liability. Future cases will rely on this precedent when evaluating landowner liability for injuries sustained during public recreational use, particularly concerning the interpretation of 'without charge' and the types of claims covered.
