Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Expressway Associates II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp.
Citations: 218 Conn. 474; 590 A.2d 431; 1991 Conn. LEXIS 233Docket: 14090
Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut; May 7, 1991; Connecticut; State Supreme Court
Expressway Associates II filed a lawsuit against Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, seeking injunctive relief and damages for alleged interference with a claimed right-of-way over Friendly's land in Glastonbury. Expressway asserted that Friendly's obstructed the right-of-way by laying out parking spaces, placing obstacles, and limiting traffic to one direction. The trial court ruled that Expressway's right-of-way was contingent upon providing notice to Friendly's before beginning construction on its site, which had not occurred, as Expressway lacked necessary town permits. Consequently, the court denied injunctive relief and damages, allowing Friendly's to continue using the right-of-way area. On appeal, the Appellate Court found that the trial court misinterpreted the documents governing the right-of-way. It clarified that notice was only required for future construction of a permanent roadway and that Expressway had a present right-of-way. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, directed that injunctive relief be granted to Expressway, and ordered further proceedings to determine damages. The certification granted focused on whether the Appellate Court correctly included provisions for damages in the remand, despite Expressway's failure to prove damages at trial and its concession to entitlement only to nominal damages. It was emphasized that the burden of proving damages lies with the claimant, and damages must be established with reasonable certainty, as they are essential to the plaintiff's proof. In Gargano v. Heyman and related cases, Expressway was required to demonstrate loss to its property value, restoration costs, or the difference in easement value before and after interference by Friendly to claim more than nominal damages. Despite being notified of the trial date and having the opportunity to present evidence, Expressway failed to prove any damages at trial. Counsel for Expressway indicated a lack of actual damages in closing arguments, suggesting the claim was speculative. Admissions made by the attorney are generally admissible against the client, and in this case, the evidence supported counsel’s statement. The court concluded that Expressway sought solely injunctive relief and found no grounds for retrial on damages. Although Expressway proved interference with its right-of-way, it only substantiated a claim for nominal damages, which entitles a plaintiff to at least $1 despite the absence of actual damages. The Appellate Court's decision for further proceedings on damages was reversed, directing judgment for Expressway for $1 in nominal damages. The other justices concurred with this opinion.