White v. Edmonds
In White v. Edmonds, 38 Conn. App. 175, 183, 659 A.2d 748 (1995), the Court held that compliance with the notice provision of 8-67 is not essential to a determination of liability, but concerns only whether the plaintiff has taken the proper steps to warrant recovery. As such, the notice provision of 8-67 operates as a condition subsequent to liability rather than a condition precedent. Id., 183-84.
A notice provision is a condition precedent when the statute containing the notice provision creates a new cause of action unrecognized by the common law. Id., 185.
Section 8-67 did not create liability where none existed. Id. Rather, it provides procedural limitations on the ability to recover on a cause of action already available. Id.
Indeed, "a written notice is not a condition precedent to the bringing of the action but is a limitation creating a condition subsequent." Harris v. Housing Authority, 21 Conn. Supp. 132, 133, 146 A.2d 418 (1958).
Compliance with the statute is a condition subsequent such that noncompliance, when specially pleaded, "concerns only whether the plaintiff has taken the proper steps to warrant recovery." White v. Edmonds, supra, 183.