Northrup v. Witkowski

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 plaintiffs, who reside in the borough of Naugatuck on a particular parcel of property that is prone to flooding, appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants, the borough and several of its officials, which was rendered on the basis of govern- mental immunity. The plaintiffs had alleged, inter alia, that the defen- dants' negligence caused their property to be inundated by water on eight separate occasions. Specifically, the plaintiffs had alleged that a nearby municipally owned catch basin in the area routinely became clogged or otherwise inadequately redirected storm water away from their property. In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs' negligence claims were barred by governmental immunity because they involved acts or omissions that required the exercise of judgment or discretion. In granting that motion, the trial court concluded that, because the municipal ordinance setting forth the general duties of the relevant municipal department did not contain specific directions or mandates as to how those duties should be discharged, the plaintiffs' claims necessarily pertained to discretion- ary acts or omissions. The trial court acknowledged this court's decision in Spitzer v. Waterbury (113 Conn. 84), which held that the repair and maintenance of municipally owned drainage systems are ministerial functions, but concluded that, under more recent case law, the duty to repair and maintain drainage systems is discretionary unless an ordi- nance prescribes the particular manner in which that duty is to be discharged. The plaintiff subsequently appealed from the trial court's judgment