# Maffucci v. Royal Park Ltd. Partnership

> Supreme Court of Connecticut · January 27, 1998 · 243 Conn. 552

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7845175

## Case

- **Full name:** MICHAEL MAFFUCCI v. ROYAL PARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Connecticut
- **Decided:** January 27, 1998
- **Citations:** 243 Conn. 552; 707 A.2d 15; 1998 Conn. LEXIS 5
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McDonald
- **Judges:** Callahan, McDonald
- **Cited by:** 359 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7845175

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating, "[w]e agree with [section] 335 that liability in negligence for a dangerous condition on land will attach only if the possessor has actual or constructive knowledge that ‘trespassers constantly intrude[d] upon a limited area of the land’ " and "[w]e note that the reco…
- holding that "[k]nowledge of trespassers to other areas cannot ... be the basis for imposing liability" under section 335

## Opinion text

MCDONALD, J.,
concurring. I wish to add that when a person goes onto another’s property for the purpose of committing a larceny, that person’s purpose is to avoid detection, apprehension and prosecution. A thief s objective, ultimately, is to go unnoticed. This is hardly a circumstance where constructive notice should arise to impose landowner liability for the condition of the property. A burglar inherently endangers himself or herself and others when committing an offense. It makes no sense that a person committing a crime should receive a greater level of protection than that given to a person playing in a sporting event. See, e.g., Jaworski v. Kiernan, 241 Conn. 399 , 696 A.2d 332 (1997). Landowners simply should not be required to keep their property safe for burglars else they be held liable for negligence.
In the words of a justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, “[i]t shocks the conscience of a civilized nation that a criminal can recover large damage awards for an injury incurred while committing a crime.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St. 3d 116, 129 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997) (Lundberg Stratton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
*569 I believe we should state unequivocally on policy grounds that a landowner is not liable for negligence in such circumstances. I therefore agree with the result reached by the majority.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7845175. Public record. Not legal advice.