No person may acquire a right-of-way or any other easement from, in, upon or over the land of another, by the adverse use or enjoyment thereof, unless the use has been continued uninterrupted for fifteen years.

(1949 Rev., S. 7130; P.A. 79-602, S. 56.)

History: P.A. 79-602 substituted “may” for “shall” and “the” for “such” where appearing.

No user less than 15 years can avail. 69 C. 263. Personal rights-of-way in this state may not be established by local custom. 78 C. 133. Whether user is under license or under claim of right is a question of fact. Id., 156. City may acquire right to maintain sewer; imputing knowledge of it to landowner. 81 C. 137. Use may originate in oral agreement or void deed; effect of claimant becoming executor of owner of fee. 90 C. 241. Where an individual use is in common with a public use, there must have been a use of the way by the individual distinctive from that of the general public. 134 C. 576. Trial court erred in denying plaintiff injunctive relief. 136 C. 277. No right can be acquired unless use defines its bounds with reasonable certainty. Id., 398. User by plaintiff's tenants inures to benefit of lessor; user by defendants not inconsistent with plaintiff's right. 137 C. 586. Where use is permissive, it cannot be under a claim of right. 139 C. 352. To acquire a right-of-way by prescription, there must be a user which is open, visible, continuous and uninterrupted for 15 years and made under a claim of right. 142 C. 296. Cited. Id., 708. Essential elements of a right-of-way by prescription are a use which is (1) open and visible, (2) continuous and uninterrupted for 15 years, (3) engaged in under a claim of right. 143 C. 40. Where defendant had maintained mooring stakes for over 30 years along river frontage of plaintiff's property and thereafter erected floating docks also along plaintiff's property, held defendant had not sustained burden of proving continuity of user to acquire by prescription enough of plaintiff's littoral rights to justify interference created by docks. 149 C. 560. Plaintiff acquired no prescriptive right where owner gave him permission of use; in absence of finding when use began, no prescriptive rights can be acquired. 151 C. 458. Riparian owner's rights to natural flow of water of stream through his land infringed by New London's expansion of its water reservoir in a drought held to entitle plaintiff to nominal damages and, unless city acquired water rights by eminent domain in a reasonable time, to an injunction of further diversion by the city. 157 C. 9. Cited. 165 C. 457; 175 C. 535; 183 C. 289; 186 C. 229; 190 C. 163; Id., 184; 196 C. 614; 227 C. 495. Permanent injunction precluded plaintiff's asserting valid claim of right to use private way over defendant's property. 244 C. 583. In order to acquire a prescriptive easement, party may “tack on” the period of use or possession of someone who is in privity with the party, a relationship that may be established by showing a transfer of possession rights. 276 C. 782. Evidence was sufficient to establish that plaintiff's use of right-of-way was adverse, notorious and continuous and sufficient to gain legal right and title. 294 C. 418. Plaintiffs acquired prescriptive easement for recreational use of nonnavigable, artificial body of water through uninterrupted and continuous use for at least 15 years, and proof of daily or constant use was not necessary to acquire this type of easement. 296 C. 43.

Cited. 1 CA 341; Id., 373; 3 CA 639; 7 CA 252; 8 CA 203; 20 CA 298; Id., 380; 32 CA 746; 33 CA 799; 37 CA 822; 39 CA 143; 44 CA 683; 46 CA 164. Although plaintiff did not have burden of proving absence of permission, plaintiff did have burden of proving that she and her predecessors adversely used the driveway under a claim or right. 83 CA 826. Trial court finding that underground utility lines placed outside the deeded utility easement were open and visible where plaintiffs had knowledge of parameters of easement and sewer cleanouts were visible outside those parameters was not clearly erroneous. 92 CA 172. Trial court properly applied facts found to requirements of section in determining that necessary elements for establishing an easement by prescription had been met by a preponderance of the evidence and, in doing so, properly concluded plaintiff satisfied her burden of proof to establish use of driveway under a claim of right by offering testimony that neither she nor her predecessors asked for or were given permission to use defendant's driveway, but rather had used it under belief that it was their right to do so. 139 CA 813.

Cited. 15 CS 467. Use for 28 years in disregard of a no trespassing sign established a right-of-way. 19 CS 220. Requirements for prescriptive easement discussed. 45 CS 515.