Edgerton v. Town of Clinton

• Decision Date: 18 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 19095.,19095.
• Citation: 311 Conn. 217,86 A.3d 437
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Adele P. EDGERTON, Successor Conservator (Estate of Walker Hopkins) v. TOWN OF CLINTON et al.

311 Conn. 217

86 A.3d 437

Adele P. EDGERTON, Successor Conservator (Estate of Walker Hopkins)

v.TOWN OF CLINTON et al.

No. 19095.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Sept. 26, 2013.

Decided March 18, 2014.

Aaron S. Bayer, Hartford, with whom were Julie Loughran and Lawrence A. Ouellette, Jr., New Haven, and, on the brief, Michael P. Thompson, Stamford, for the appellant (named defendant).

Steven D. Ecker, Hartford, with whom were M. Caitlin S. Anderson, and, on the brief, Gavan F. Meehan, Hartford, for the appellee (substitute plaintiff).

ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH, McDONALD and ESPINOSA, Js.

ZARELLA, J.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether the named defendant, the town of Clinton (town),¹ is shielded from liability under the doctrine of governmental immunity because it would not have been apparent to Ellen Vece, a 911 dispatcher employed by the town, that her acts or omissions would have been likely to subject Walker Hopkins to imminent harm. Hopkins' injuries occurred as a result of the second of two vehicle collisions on August 5, 2005, in Clinton. First, at approximately 9:15 p.m., a dark red Infiniti driven by William Cardillo struck the side of a vehicle driven by Matthew Vincent, a volunteer firefighter and security guard at Clinton Crossing Premium Outlets (Clinton Crossing). Vincent pursued the Infiniti in his vehicle with blue courtesy lights flashing for nearly three miles at forty to fifty miles per hour over winding, residential roads. The Infiniti eventually crashed into a tree, and Hopkins, a passenger in the Infiniti, suffered severe injuries. During the course of the pursuit, Vincent calmly relayed information about the Infiniti and its location to Vece ² via cell phone. Vincent did not inform Vece that he was driving in excess of the speed limit or that he had engaged his blue courtesy lights.

The substitute plaintiff, Adele P. Edgerton, successor conservator of Hopkins' estate (plaintiff),³ claimed, inter alia, that the town was liable for Hopkins' injuries under General Statutes § 52–557n (a)(1)(A).⁴ At trial, the jury found the town liable under the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity because the circumstances would have made it apparent to Vece that her failure to act would have been likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm. The jury further found that Vece's failure to act was a proximate cause of Hopkins' injuries. As a result, the jury attributed 90 percent of the negligence to Vece and ultimately awarded the plaintiff $12,713,612.97 in damages. ⁵ On appeal, the town claims that it should not be held liable under the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the doctrine of governmental immunity because the circumstances would not have made it apparent to Vece that her failure to instruct Vincent to stop following the Infiniti likely would have subjected Hopkins to imminent harm. The town further argues that, even if the exception does apply, Vece's failure to act was not a proximate cause of Hopkins' injuries. The plaintiff counters that the identifiable person-imminent harm exception does apply and that Vece's failure to act was a proximate cause of Hopkins' injuries. We agree with the town and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to the town.

The jury reasonably could have found the following relevant facts. On August 5, 2005, Hopkins was a passenger ⁶ in the dark red Infiniti, which was driven by Cardillo. At approximately 9:15 p.m., Cardillo was slowly making a left hand turn at the intersection of Route 81 and Glenwood Road in Clinton when his vehicle swerved and hit the rear left quarter panel of Vincent's car. After this initial collision, Vincent stopped, but Cardillo proceeded to drive away on Glenwood Road at approximately twenty miles per hour. Vincent then continued on Glenwood Road, pursuing the Infiniti at approximately forty to fifty miles per hour. The route consisted of winding, narrow, residential roads with speed limits of twenty-five or thirty miles per hour. This pursuit lasted for nearly three miles.

At some point during the pursuit, Vincent turned on blue courtesy lights, with which his car was equipped because he was a volunteer firefighter. Blue courtesy lights, which are similar to police lights, are intended to be used when a volunteer firefighter is responding to a fire or a medical emergency. An eyewitness stated that, at one point during the pursuit, Vincent's vehicle and the Infiniti were less than two feet apart and Vincent's vehicle had its “hazards on or flashers on....” After Vincent had been following the Infiniti for between four and five minutes, the Infiniti collided with a tree and caught on fire. As a result of this second collision, Hopkins sustained serious injuries, including a closed head injury and traumatic brain injury. Following their arrival at the accident scene, the police issued Vincent a citation for the improper use of his blue courtesy lights.

While Vincent was following the Infiniti, he relayed information regarding the Infiniti and its location to Vece via cell phone. Vincent initially called 911 when he realized that Cardillo was not going to stop after the initial collision occurred. Vincent and Vece knew each other well and had communicated more than 100 times about security issues at Clinton Crossing. During the 911 call, Vincent's tone was calm and collected. When Vece answered the call and asked if it was an emergency, Vincent calmly responded: “Yes, it is.” He informed her that he “just got hit by a motor vehicle” and that the vehicle “took off....” He also told Vece that he was “trying to catch up to [the vehicle] to get [the license] plate [number].” When Vece asked where Vincent was, he continuously provided her with information on his location and the location of the Infiniti. Approximately thirty-six seconds into the 911 call, Vincent provided Vece with the license plate number of the Infiniti. After another few minutes, Vincent gave Vece a more detailed description of the Infiniti, including its model name and color. Importantly, the audio recording of the 911 call revealed that there were no outside noises to indicate that Vincent was driving at an excessive rate of speed. Moreover, there was nothing in the conversation between Vincent and Vece during the 911 call to indicate that Vincent had been using his blue courtesy lights while he was following the Infiniti.

Approximately three minutes into the 911 call, Vincent informed Vece that the Infiniti had “just taken off and [was] going at a high rate of speed ... [u]p Ironworks [Road].” Vincent then said that he did not “know how fast [he] want [ed] [to go] to try to catch up to [the Infiniti].” Vece replied that the police “[knew] who it [was].” At trial, Vece explained that there was no reason for Vincent to continue following the Infiniti at that point because the police were aware of the identity of the driver of the Infiniti. Approximately ten seconds later, Vincent exclaimed that Cardillo “just wrecked it” by “roll [ing] the car” and that “[t]he car [was] on fire.” ⁷

Hopkins required permanent care as a result of his injuries, and an action was filed on his behalf on May 16, 2006, against the town, among others, pursuant to § 52–557n (a)(1)(A). The town responded that the action was barred by the common-law doctrine of governmental immunity and § 52–557n (a)(2).⁸ The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 18, 2010. The town and the defendant Clinton Volunteer Fire Department (fire department) moved for summary judgment on March 29, 2010, which the trial court denied.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on January 25, 2011. Specifically, the jury found that (1) Vece was negligent and that her negligence was a proximate cause of Hopkins' injuries, (2) an exception to governmental immunity applied because the circumstances would have made it apparent to Vece that her failure to act would have been likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm, (3) Hopkins was not negligent and did not cause his own injuries, (4) Vincent was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of Hopkins' injuries, and (5) Cardillo was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of Hopkins' injuries. The jury apportioned 90 percent of the negligence to Vece, 5 percent to Vincent, and 5 percent to Cardillo.

On March 11, 2011, the town filed a motion for remittitur or for a new trial, and a motion for a directed verdict, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or to set aside the verdict. The town claimed, inter alia, that (1) the plaintiff's claim was barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity because the evidence did not support the application of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception, and (2) the evidence failed to establish that Vece's acts or omissions were the actual or proximate cause of Hopkins' injuries. The town further argued that the jury's determination that Vece was 90 percent responsible for Hopkins' injuries “so shock[ed] the conscience that the jury clearly was influenced by sympathy, prejudice, mistake or partiality.” On July 22, 2011, the trial court denied the motions and rendered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict. The town filed a motion to reargue, which the trial court denied. The town appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court's judgment on August 5, 2011.

The trial court issued an articulation on January 6, 2012. In this articulation, the trial court stated that the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the governmental immunity doctrine applied because Vece already knew the license plate number of the Infiniti, the pursuit was of a limited duration, the parties were in a specific geographic location, and there were only a small number of people involved. The trial court thus concluded that the circumstances would have made it apparent to...