Summary
This is a concurrence in Haynes v. Middletown addressing the identifiable person–imminent harm exception to municipal governmental immunity. Justice Eveleigh agrees with remanding for a new trial but criticizes the lack of clarity in Connecticut precedent and proposes that imminence turn on whether the dangerous condition was, or should have been, apparent as sufficiently likely to cause harm in the near future.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the identifiable person, imminent harm exception to municipal governmental immunity applies when a dangerous school condition and student horseplay could reasonably be found so likely to cause harm that municipal officials had a clear and unequivocal duty to act immediately.
- Whether the prior emphasis on the temporary duration and limited location of a danger should continue to define the imminent-harm element of the exception.
- Whether the reasoning concerning imminent harm in Burns v. Board of Education and Purzycki v. Fairfield should be partially overruled.
Holdings
- The concurrence agrees with the judgment remanding for a new trial and with the majority's conclusion that a reasonable juror could find the ongoing locker-room horseplay and broken locker so likely to cause injury to a student that municipal officials had a clear and unequivocal duty to act immediately to prevent the harm.
- The concurrence would define imminent harm by asking whether it was, or should have been, apparent to the municipal defendant that the dangerous condition was so likely to cause harm in the near future that the defendant had a clear and unequivocal duty to act to prevent it.
Key quotations
“I concur in the judgment, under the unusual circumstance existing in this case, remanding this case to the trial court for a new trial.”
“In my view, the test for determining whether a harm was imminent should be whether it was, or should have been, apparent to the municipal defendant that the dangerous condition was so likely to cause harm in the near future that the defendant had a clear and unequivocal duty to act to prevent the harm.”
“For those reasons, I respectfully concur in the judgment of the court.”
Factual background
A minor student was injured in circumstances involving ongoing horseplay in a school locker room and a broken locker with a jagged edge. The concurrence describes a brief period, from approximately 9:06 to 9:11 a.m., during which the student's class traversed an unsupervised hallway after lunch. The concurrence agrees that a reasonable juror could find the horseplay and broken locker so likely to cause injury that school officials had a clear and unequivocal duty to act immediately.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court of Connecticut issued a judgment remanding the case to the trial court for a new trial. The concurrence agrees with that disposition and with the majority's conclusion that a reasonable juror could find a clear and unequivocal duty to act immediately to prevent harm from ongoing locker-room horseplay and a broken locker.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.