Cruz v. Drezek

In Cruz v. Drezek, 175 Conn. 230, 397 A.2d 1335 (1978), the Court reiterated the holdings of prior decisions regarding business invitees and their burden to prove that a defendant had notice of the specific defect that caused the injury. The court in Cruz held: "We have repeatedly stated that the notice, whether actual or constructive, must be notice of the very defect which occasioned the injury and not merely of conditions naturally productive of that defect even though subsequently in fact producing it. . . . On the question of notice, the trier's consideration must be confined to the defendants' knowledge of the specific condition causing the injury, and such knowledge cannot be found to exist from a knowledge of the general or overall conditions obtaining on the premises. . . . Circumstantial evidence is, of course, also available on the question of notice or knowledge of the specific defects . . . ." Cruz v. Drezek, supra, 175 Conn. 235.