Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency v. Jackson
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal from summary judgment; trial court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment; appellate court reversed
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Appellate court reversed summary judgment in favor of defendants, holding that the alternative liability doctrine should apply where multiple defendants' tortious conduct caused plaintiff's injury but causation cannot be pinpointed to a specific defendant.
Excerpt
Pursuant to the alternative liability doctrine, when the conduct of two or more actors is tortious and it is proven that the plaintiff's injuries have been caused by only one of those actors but it is unclear which one, the burden of proving causation shifts from the plaintiff to each actor to prove that he did not cause those injuries. The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment in favor of the defen- dants, three teenagers who had entered an abandoned mill in the town of Somers and discarded multiple cigarette butts without extinguishing them, thereby causing a fire that destroyed the mill and a sewage line in the mill's basement. While the defendants were exploring inside the mill for about forty-five minutes, each of them smoked approximately five cigarettes and discarded their unextinguished cigarettes by tossing them onto the mill's wooden floor. Experts later determined that the likely cause of the fire was the defendants' careless disposal of the cigarettes. After the plaintiff paid the town for the cost of replacing the sewage line, it brought the present subrogation action against the defendants. The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff could not prevail on the element of causation because it was unable to establish which of the defendants' cigarettes caused the fire. The trial court also declined the plaintiff's request to apply the alternative liability rule, reasoning that it would have the effect of significantly changing the negligence standards in this state and that adoption of the rule was a policy decision to be made by an appellate court or the legislature, none of which previously had endorsed the rule. On appeal, the plaintiff claimed that the trial court improperly failed to apply the alternative liability rule in granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment. Held that the plaintiff should have received the benefit of the alternative liability rule for the purpose o
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
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. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.