fully by our Supreme Court in Martin v. Plainville, 240 Conn. 105, 108, 689 A.2d 1125 (1997). As in the present case, the plaintiff in Martin, in an action also brought pursuant to § 13a-149, provided written notice to the municipality that stated that the plaintiff “ ‘was injured ....”’ Id., 107. Our Supreme Court held that such notice lacked “ ‘a general description’ ” of the plaintiffs injuries as a matter of law; id., 108; and, despite a vigorous dissent by Justice Berdon; see id., 114-19; because the notice failed to set forth any description of the injuries sustained, rather than an inaccurate description, the cause of action could not be salvaged by the savings clause contained in § 13a-149. Id., 113; see also Marino v. East Haven, 120 Conn. 577, 578, 580-81, 182 A. 225 (1935) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the plaintiffs claim has no
holding that notice of judgment was insufficient holding that a customer was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law even though she knew the oil was on the floor before her slip and fall holding that evidence that plaintiff could walk only four hours a day was insufficient as a matter of law to prove that she was disabled holding that notice provided by plaintiff that alleged she  was injured  as result of fall was insufficient as matter of law and precluded invocation of savings clause holding that plaintiffs inability to stand more than two hours was insufficient as a matter of law to prove that she was disabled