Fidelity Bank v. State
| Decision Date | 26 March 1974 |
| Citation | 348 A.2d 633,166 Conn. 251 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | The FIDELITY BANK, Executor (ESTATE OF Thomas F. BRICHT) v. STATE of Connecticut et al. The FIDELITY BANK, Executor (ESTATE OF Margaret B. BRIGHT) v. STATE of Connecticut et al. |
William A. Rabinowitz, Hartford, and Arnold E. Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., of the Pennsylvania bar, with whom, on brief, were James E. Beasley and Samuel Diamond, Philadelphia, Pa., of the Pennsylvania bar, for appellant (plaintiff) in each case.
Brian E. O'Neill, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, were Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen., and Richard F. Webb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees (defendants) in each case.
Before HOUSE, C.J., and SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MacDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.
These two cases were consolidated for appeal to this court. The plaintiff in each case is a Pennsylvania corporation serving as executor under the wills of Thomas F. and Margaret B. Bright, husband and wife, who had resided in Pennsylvania. As such executor, the plaintiff brought companion actions against the state of Connecticut, the department of environmental protection, the commissioner of environmental protection, and the public works commission, the commissioner of public works and two corporations, Griswold Air Service, Inc., and Griswold Airport, Inc. In each case it is alleged that the plaintiff's decedent was killed when a private aircraft piloted by Thomas and in which Margaret was a passenger crashed into a water storage tower located at Hammonasset Beach State Park in Madison. Negligence on the part of each defendant and, in addition, the maintenance of a nuisance by the state of Connecticut, the department of public works or the park and forest commission are alleged.
The attorney general appeared on behalf of the state, the defendant department and commission and the defendant commissioners, all of whom demurred to the complaints on the ground that the actions are not maintainable since the state is immune from suit unless authorized by law, and it does not appear that the suits were sanctioned by statute or by special act of the legislature nor authorized by the state commission on claims. The court sustained the demurrers and, the plaintiff failing in each case to plead further, judgment was rendered for those defendants represented by the attorney general.
On its appeals, the plaintiff seeks to have this court abrogate by judicial fiat the long-established, common-law rule that the state is immune from suit unless by appropriate legislative action it has consented to be sued. See Baker v. Ives, 162 Conn. 295, 298, 294 A.2d 290, and the many cases cited. As this court observed in Murphy v. Ives, 151 Conn. 259, 262-263, 196 A.2d 596, 598: '(T)he state's sovereign right not to be sued without its consent is 'not to be diminished by statute, unless a clear intention to that effect on the part of the legislature is disclosed, by the use of express terms or by force of necessary implication,' State v. Kilburn, . . . (81 Conn. 9, 11, 69 A. 1028).'
Not only has Connecticut long recognized the common-law principle of the state's immunity from suit without its consent, but it has expressly provided by constitutional provision and statutory enactment for the adjudication of claims against the state. The constitution of Connecticut, article eleventh, § 4, expressly provides: 'Claims against the state shall be resolved in such manner as may be provided by law.' This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Textron, Inc. v. Wood
...it has consented to be sued. See Baker v. Ives, 162 Conn. 295, 298, 294 A.2d 290, and the many cases cited; and see Fidelity Bank v. State, 166 Conn. 251, 348 A.2d 633, for a recent formulation of the doctrine. The same immunity extends to such state officers as the defendant when acting in......
-
Chotkowski v. State
...of a private person in like circumstances." Id., at 557, 457 A.2d 304. Similarly, this court pointed out in Fidelity Bank v. State, 166 Conn. 251, 254, 348 A.2d 633 (1974), where the plaintiff's direct action against the state based on negligence was dismissed, that a claim could have been ......
-
Horton v. Meskill
...state officer is in effect one against the sovereign state. Textron, Inc. v. Wood, 167 Conn. 334, 339, 355 A.2d 307; Fidelity Bank v. State, 166 Conn. 251, 253, 348 A.2d 633; Baker v. Ives, 162 Conn. 295, 298, 294 A.2d 290; State v. Kilburn, 81 Conn. 9, 11, 69 A. 1028. This rule had its ori......
-
Miller v. Egan
...v. Kilburn, 81 Conn. 9, 11, 69 A. 1028 (1908); accord Lacasse v. Burns, 214 Conn. 464, 468, 572 A.2d 357 (1990); Fidelity Bank v. State, 166 Conn. 251, 253, 348 A.2d 633 (1974); Baker v. Ives, 162 Conn. 295, 298, 294 A.2d 290 (1972); Murphy v. Ives, 151 Conn. 259, 262-63, 196 A.2d 596 I rea......
-
The Conscience of the State: History, Procedure & Precedents of the Office of the Claims Commissioner
...has assumed in part the prior role of the legislature to ensure that justice and equity is done. Id. 2 Fidelity Bank v. State, 166 Conn. 251, 255, 348 A.2d. 633 (1974). The executive branch is likewise not the appropriate branch to waive the state's immunity. See Berger, Lehman Associates, ......
-
Common-law Sovereign Immunity: Why Connecticut Never Really Had it
...is in effect one against the sovereign state. Textron, Inc. v. Wood, 167 Conn. 334, 389, 355 A.2d 307 [1974]; Fidelity Bank v. State, 166 Conn. 251, 253, 348 A.2d 633 [1974]; Baker v. Ives, 162 Conn. 295, 298, 294 A.2d 290 [1972]; State v. Kilburn, 81 Conn. 9, 11, 69 A. 1028 [1908]. The Cou......