Summary
The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed summary judgment for the Town of Westport, its planning and zoning department, and individual employees in a negligence action arising from alleged failures to inspect property and enforce zoning regulations. The court held that the challenged inspections and zoning-enforcement decisions were discretionary acts protected by governmental immunity and that the identifiable person–imminent harm exception did not apply. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs’ indemnification claim against the town under General Statutes § 7-465 depended on establishing liability against a municipal employee.
Holdings
- Inspections to determine whether property conforms to zoning regulations and the predicate determination whether a zoning violation exists generally require the exercise of judgment and are discretionary acts protected by governmental immunity, absent a specifically prescribed ministerial duty.
- The identifiable person-imminent harm exception did not apply because the alleged harm from future rainfall and the plaintiffs' possible decision to incur litigation expenses would occur, if at all, at an indefinite time rather than at a discrete time and place.
- Because the plaintiffs' claim against the town was based solely on indemnification under General Statutes § 7-465 and depended on liability of the municipal employees, the employees' immunity necessarily disposed of the claim against the town.
Questions Presented
- Whether the alleged failures to inspect property, determine whether zoning violations existed, and enforce zoning regulations were discretionary acts protected by governmental immunity.
- Whether the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to discretionary-act immunity applied to the plaintiffs' alleged flooding, erosion, septic-system threat, and litigation expenses.
- Whether the individual defendants' immunity necessarily defeated the plaintiffs' indemnification claim against the town under General Statutes § 7-465.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (22)
- Doe v. Petersen, 279 Conn. 607, 613, 903 A.2d 191 (2006)(followed)
- Martel v. Metropolitan District Commission, 275 Conn. 38, 46-49, 881 A.2d 194 (2005)(followed)
- Mulligan v. Rioux, 229 Conn. 716, 736, 643 A.2d 1226 (1994)(followed)
- Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179, 193, 592 A.2d 912 (1991)(followed)
- Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310, 318-20, 907 A.2d 1188 (2006)(followed)
- Swanson v. Groton, 116 Conn. App. 849, 854, 977 A.2d 738 (2009)(followed)
- Blake v. Mason, 82 Conn. 324, 327, 73 A. 782 (1909)(followed)
- Grignano v. Milford, 106 Conn. App. 648, 654, 656-60, 943 A.2d 507 (2008)(followed)
- Pluhowsky v. New Haven, 151 Conn. 337, 347-48, 197 A.2d 645 (1964)(followed)
- Wright v. Brown, 167 Conn. 464, 468, 472, 356 A.2d 176 (1975)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 22.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.