Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Kahn; Ecker
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court's judgment and held that a police officer's negligent operation of an unmarked vehicle during surveillance was not protected by governmental immunity because motor vehicle operation constitutes a ministerial rather than discretionary duty. The case was remanded with direction to reinstate the jury's verdict for the plaintiff.
Excerpt
Pursuant to statute (§ 52-557n (a) (2) (B)) and the common law of this state, respectively, municipalities and their employees enjoy qualified immunity from liability for their negligent acts or omissions in the perfor- mance of duties that require the exercise of judgment or discretion. The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendants, the city of Hartford and one of its police officers, K, in connection with injuries the plaintiff sustained when a motorcycle on which he was riding was struck from behind by K's unmarked police vehicle. K's vehicle, known as a ''soft car,'' lacked flashing or revolving lights and was indiscernible from an ordinary civilian vehicle. While driving his vehicle, K was instructed to surveil a group of motorcycles and quads riding through the city streets. K, who was traveling between forty and fifty miles per hour in a twenty-five mile per hour zone, crossed the street's center line and proceeded to travel north in the southbound lane, where the front of his vehicle struck the back tire of the plaintiff's motorcycle, causing the plaintiff to crash and sustain serious injuries. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that K's negligence had caused his injuries and that the city was liable pursuant to § 52-557n (a) (1) (A) for the negligent acts of K and was required to indemnify K pursuant to the municipal indemnification statute (§ 7-465). Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that K had violated a ministerial duty imposed by the motor vehicle statutes ((Rev. to 2013) §§ 14-218a and 14-240) that govern speed on local road- ways and following distances, respectively, and the statute ((Rev. to 2013) § 14-230) that requires vehicles to be driven on the right. The defendants asserted various special defenses, including governmental immunity pursuant to the common law and § 52-557n (a) (2) (B). After a trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on his negligence claim, and the court then heard argument on the issue of government
Similar Rulings
Buy and Sell Contract—Mineral Rights—Warranty Deed—Negligence—Breach of Contract—Statute of Limitations—Third Party—Cause of Action—Accrual Date. The Bells hired Orr Land Company LLC (Orr) and its employee Ellerman to represent them in selling their real property. Orr found a buyer and the Bells entered into a buy and sell contract with the buyer, which provided, as pertinent here, that the sale excluded all oil, gas, and mineral rights in the property. Orr then retained Land Title Guarantee Company (Land Title) to draft closing documents, including the warranty deed. In 2005 the Bells signed the warranty deed and sold the property to the buyer. The Bells didn't know that the warranty deed prepared by Land Title didn't contain any language reserving the Bells' mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. For over nine years, the Bells continued to receive the mineral owner's royalty payments due under an oil and gas lease on the property. In 2014 the lessee oil and gas company learned that the Bells didn't own the mineral rights, so it began sending the payments to the buyer. After that, the Bells discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. In 2016 the Bells filed this negligence and breach of contract action against defendants Land Title, Orr, and Ellerman. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Bells' claims were untimely because the statute of limitations had run. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Bells contended that the district court erred in granting defendants' motions to dismiss because they sufficiently alleged facts that, if true, establish that the statute of limitations didn't begin to accrue on their claims until the oil and gas company ceased payment in September 2014, which is when they contended they discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights. A plaintiff must commence tort actions within two years
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.