Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for the town of Winchester and a police officer in a negligence and indemnification action arising from the plaintiff’s suicide attempt while in Torrington police custody. The court held that Winchester police policies concerning responses to persons experiencing mental health crises imposed discretionary rather than ministerial duties, and that the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity did not apply. The court also concluded that factual disputes concerning the plaintiff’s drug use and statements of suicidal intent were immaterial to the immunity analysis.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether disputed facts concerning Sequeiro's drug use and whether he told officers he was suicidal precluded summary judgment.
- Whether Winchester Police Department policies created ministerial duties, rather than discretionary duties, that were not protected by governmental immunity.
- Whether Waltzer's alleged failure to prepare the required incident documentation was actionable.
- Whether the identifiable-person/imminent-harm exception to governmental immunity applied.
Holdings
- The disputed facts did not preclude summary judgment because they were immaterial to whether the Winchester Police Department policies created discretionary or ministerial duties.
- General Order # 1.3.17 imposed discretionary, not ministerial, duties because it required officers to exercise judgment in assessing mental-health crises, evaluating risk, and selecting among multiple possible responses.
- The alleged failure to prepare a narrative incident report was not actionable because it bore no demonstrable causal relation to Sequeiro's injuries.
- The exception did not apply because Sequeiro was not exposed to imminent harm while handcuffed and under the immediate supervision of police officers, and the risk was not so immediate that Waltzer had a clear and unequivocal duty to act.
Key quotations
“The order provided Waltzer with discretion concerning the assessment of suicide risk and possible responses to persons in crisis.” (Part II A 1)
“As a matter of law, there is no causal connection between the plaintiff’s attempted suicide at the Torrington Police Department and Waltzer’s alleged failure to write a narrative incident report in the electronic database of the Winchester Police Department.” (Part II A 2)
“Imminent does not simply mean a foreseeable event at some unspecified point in the not too distant future.” (Part II A 4)
Factual background
Torrington police informed the Winchester Police Department that Sequeiro, suspected of domestic violence, was traveling to obtain drugs and intended to overdose. Winchester officer Justin Waltzer located and detained Sequeiro, who did not possess drugs or drug paraphernalia and did not appear intoxicated, then transferred him to Torrington police officers. After being placed in a Torrington police cell, Sequeiro attempted suicide by jumping from a combination sink/toilet and suffered severe injuries, including incomplete quadriplegia and paralysis.
Procedural history
The plaintiff commenced the action in 2021 and filed an operative complaint on July 6, 2023, asserting negligence against Waltzer and indemnification against the town under General Statutes § 7-465. The Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Welch, J., granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on November 4, 2024, concluding that Waltzer's conduct was discretionary and protected by governmental immunity. The plaintiff appealed, and the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed.