Woodford v. HRG Management, LLC

The defendant city of Danbury and the defendant E, the city's deputy chief building inspector, appealed from the trial court's judgments for the plain- tiffs in their actions alleging, inter alia, a statutory (§ 52-557n (b) (7) and (8)) cause of action for reckless disregard for health or safety in the issuance of permits and the making of inspections, in connection with the build-out of the plaintiffs' party goods store. The city claimed, inter alia, that the court erred in charging the jury that the plaintiffs could recover against the city in a direct action pursuant to § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8). Held: The trial court properly instructed the jury that the plaintiffs could recover damages in a direct action against the city pursuant to § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8), as subdivisions (7) and (8) of that statute specifically abrogate govern- mental immunity in circumstances in which a municipality's conduct or that of its employee in the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of any permit or in the making of inspections constitutes a reckless disregard for health or safety. This court rejected the city's alternative claim that causes of action brought pursuant to § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8) should derive only from a city policy to issue permits or conduct inspections with reckless disregard for health or safety, or a formal citywide practice to recklessly issue permits or conduct inspections that was so pervasive that it was the functional equivalent of city policy, as the language of § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8) is clear and unambiguous and did not include such a requirement. The trial court did not err in its charge to the jury with respect to the proper legal standard for recklessness under § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8), as, to the extent This case originally was argued before a panel of this court consist- ing of Judges Seeley, Wilson and Prescott. Thereafter, Judge Keller was substituted for Judge Prescott, and she has read the briefs and appendices, and has listened to

The defendant city of Danbury and the defendant E, the city's deputy chief building inspector, appealed from the trial court's judgment for the plain- tiffs in their action alleging, inter alia, a statutory (§ 52-557n (b) (7) and (8)) cause of action for reckless disregard for health or safety in the issuance of permits and the making of inspections , in connection with the build-out of the plaintiffs' party goods store. The city claimed, inter alia, that the court erred in charging the jury that the plaintiffs could recover against the city in a direct action pursuant to § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8). Held: The trial court properly instructed the jury that the plaintiffs could recover damages in a direct action against the city pursuant to § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8), as subdivisions (7) and (8) of that statute specifically abrogate govern- mental immunity in circumstances in which a municipality's conduct or that of its employee in the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of any permit or in the making of inspections constitutes a reckless disregard for health or safety. This court rejected the city's alternative claim that causes of action brought pursuant to § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8) should derive only from a city policy to issue permits or conduct inspections with reckless disregard for health or safety, or a formal citywide practice to recklessly issue permits or conduct inspections that was so pervasive that it was the functional equivalent of city policy, as the language of § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8) is clear and unambiguous and did not include such a requirement. The trial court did not err in its charge to the jury with respect to the proper legal standard for recklessness under § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8), as, to the extent This case originally was argued before a panel of this court consist- ing of Judges Seeley, Wilson and Prescott. Thereafter, Judge Keller was substituted for Judge Prescott, and she has read the briefs and appendices, and has listened to