Hartford Municipal Employees Ass'n v. City of Hartford
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Flynn, Lavine, Robinson
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- Connecticut appellate court decision on union claims against municipal employer
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Connecticut appellate court addressed municipal employee union claims regarding pension and benefit disputes with the City of Hartford, resulting in a mixed decision on various contractual and statutory issues.
Similar Rulings
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
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.