Celentano v. Rocque, 282 Conn. 645

Summary

The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the dismissal of an administrative appeal challenging an order requiring the plaintiffs to remedy deficiencies in an unsafe dam and detention basin. The court held that the Commissioner of Environmental Protection acted within his statutory authority under General Statutes § 22a-402 and that an easement or maintenance efforts by other parties did not relieve the plaintiffs of potential responsibility. The court also addressed, and rejected, the challenge to applying the responsible corporate officer doctrine to impose personal liability on Celentano.

Holdings

1. The commissioner acted within his jurisdiction and statutory authority under General Statutes § 22a-402 because he had inspected the dam, determined that it was unsafe, and reasonably concluded that its failure could cause loss of life or property damage. Section 22a-402 does not require proof that the dam had already breached or that its capacity had previously been exceeded.
2. The plaintiffs remained subject to § 22a-402 because an easement granting maintenance rights to Ridge Development and the borough did not establish that full control had been transferred to and accepted by those entities. Even if the easement had been accepted, it could subject those entities to liability without relieving the plaintiffs of their own statutory responsibility.
3. The responsible corporate officer doctrine may be applied under General Statutes § 22a-402 to hold a corporate officer personally responsible for remediation of an unsafe dam. The doctrine applies because § 22a-402 is a strict-liability public-welfare statute that broadly reaches any individual or legal entity owning or controlling a dangerous dam. Celentano satisfied the three-part test because he occupied a position of responsibility, his conduct and omissions were connected to Cel-Mor's ownership and failure to remedy the unsafe dam, and those actions or omissions resulted in the violation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the commissioner acted within his statutory authority under General Statutes § 22a-402 when he issued the 2002 order without evidence that the dam had already breached or exceeded its capacity.
2. Whether the plaintiffs avoided responsibility for the dam under § 22a-402 because an easement allowed Ridge Development and the borough to maintain the dam and because those entities performed some maintenance.
3. Whether the responsible corporate officer doctrine could apply under § 22a-402 and whether the facts supported holding Celentano personally responsible for repairing the unsafe dam.

Disposition

affirmed