Coggins v. City of New Haven

Full title: TYWANDA COGGINS v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN

Court: Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven

Date published: May 26, 2004

2004 Ct. Sup. 8185 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

37 CLR 83

Opinion

No. CV00-0443858

May 26, 2004

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT #109

THOMPSON, JUDGE.

The defendant, City of New Haven, has moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff's action names only the City as a defendant and is brought pursuant to § 52-557n of the General Statutes.

The plaintiff's claim arises from injuries which she claims to have sustained when Brian Jooss, a member of the New Haven Fire Department responding to an emergency call, stepped on the plaintiff's finger while trying to control an unruly person in need of assistance.

Section 52-557n provides that a municipality is not liable for "negligent acts or omissions which require the exercise of judgment or discretion as an official function of the authority expressly or impliedly granted by law." The operation of a municipal fire department is a governmental function. Brock-Hall Dairy Co. v. New Haven, 122 Conn. 321, 324 (1937).

The plaintiff, however, seeks to invoke the exception to governmental immunity which arises when the circumstances make it apparent to the public officer that failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm. The parties are at odds on whether this exception applies when the only defendant is the municipality. Trial courts have ruled both ways on this issue.

This issue appears to have been put to rest in the recent Supreme Court case of Pane v. City of Danbury, 267 Conn. 669 (2004).

In Pane, the Court stated in Footnote 9 ". . . that there is an exception to the doctrine of qualified immunity from liability as it applies to a municipal employee, as distinct from the municipality itself `where the circumstances make it apparent to the public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm' . . . That exception does not apply in this case because the claims against Merullo have been withdrawn."

Thus the exception to the defense of governmental immunity relied upon by the plaintiff does not apply in this case since the only defendant is the City of New Haven. Since the exception does not apply the defense of governmental immunity is applicable to the plaintiff's claim. The motion for summary judgment is therefore granted.

Bruce W. Thompson, Judge