Kubala v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.

• Decision Date: 20 May 2011
• Docket Number: No. CV–10–6014903–S.,CV–10–6014903–S.
• Citation: 52 Conn.Supp. 218,41 A.3d 351,52 Conn. L. Rptr. 31
• Parties: Dorothy KUBALA v. HARTFORD ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESAN CORPORATION et al.*
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court

41 A.3d 351

52 Conn. L. Rptr. 31

52 Conn.Supp. 218

Dorothy KUBALA

v.HARTFORD ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESAN CORPORATION et al.*

No. CV–10–6014903–S.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven.

May 20, 2011.

John A. Cirello, New Haven, for the plaintiff.

Beverly S. Knapp, James A. Alissi, Hartford, and Timothy M. Gondek, for the defendants.

ALEXANDER, J.

The plaintiff, Dorothy Kubala, commenced this action against the defendants, Robert Rousseau, St. Augustine's Church, and Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation (Hartford Diocese), on September 16, 2010. In her original complaint, dated September 9, 2010, the plaintiff alleges the following facts: the Hartford Diocese was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Connecticut which managed Catholic churches in Connecticut that provided, among other things, Catholic Charismatic Renewal services, including healing masses. St. Augustine's Church was a Catholic church located in North Branford, Connecticut. Commencing on or about January 9, 2009, and for some time prior, St. Augustine's Church held a healing service that was open to the general public, including the plaintiff. Robert Rousseau held himself out to the general public as a Roman Catholic priest. He served as a priest at St. Augustine's Church in the Hartford Diocese and was subject to their rules, regulations, by-laws and protocols as promulgated by its boards, departments and committees. The Hartford Diocese and its servants, agents, apparent agents and/or employees had a contract, agreement and/or other understanding with Rousseau and St. Augustine's Church under which the latter and their servants, agents, apparent agents and/or employees would adhere to and abide by the rules, regulations, standards and protocols as promulgated by the Hartford Diocese and its departments, sections and committees. Pursuant to this agreement, the Hartford Diocese was to accept Rousseau's and St. Augustine's Church's parishioners into the church's facilities.

On January 9, 2009, the plaintiff voluntarily attended a healing service at St. Augustine's Church, presided over by Rousseau, which was held for members of the general public. The plaintiff alleges that while she was under the care and supervision of Rousseau, St. Augustine's Church and their servants, agents, apparent agents and/or employees, she approached the altar, was prayed over, and “rested in the spirit,” ¹ falling backwards and hitting the floor with the back of her head. She suffered severe and painful injuries as a result.

The plaintiff alleges that her injuries were caused by the defendants' failure to exercise the degree of care and skill ordinarily and customarily used by priests and churches performing Catholic Charismatic Renewal healing services. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants were negligent in that they: (a) failed to follow protocols, rules and procedures as outlined by the Hartford Diocese and St. Augustine's Church; (b) failed to have attendees seated or kneeling while being prayed over; (c) failed to provide a safe, soft surface for attendees, including the plaintiff, to fall to, if and when they fell or “rested in the spirit”; (d) failed to warn attendees, including the plaintiff, about the possibility of injury while “resting in the spirit”; (e) failed to promulgate and/or enforce rules, regulations, standards and protocols for attendees, such as the plaintiff; (f) failed to adequately train and supervise the “catchers” at the healing service; (g) failed to choose “catchers” who were physically and mentally fit to exercise their duty as “catchers;” (h) failed to choose an appropriate number of “catchers” for the healing service; and, (i) failed to utilize that degree of care and skill or diligence ordinarily exercised by charismatic priests and churches in the Catholic Charismatic Revival.

On December 16, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, which was accompanied by a memorandum of law. On February 8, 2011, the plaintiff filed an objection to the motion to dismiss. On February 10, 2011, the defendants filed a reply brief to the plaintiff's objection. The court heard oral argument on this matter on February 14, 2011. Based upon the review of the facts and the applicable case law, the court grants the motion to dismiss.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

“A motion to dismiss ... properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bacon Construction Co. v. Dept. of Public Works, 294 Conn. 695, 706, 987 A.2d 348 (2010). “When a trial court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss on the basis of the complaint alone, it must consider the allegations of the complaint in their most favorable light.... In this regard, a court must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642, 651, 974 A.2d 669 (2009). “[I]t is well established that, in determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Novak v. Levin, 287 Conn. 71, 79, 951 A.2d 514 (2008).

The defendants argue that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the defendants' conduct in the performance of the healing prayer service where the plaintiff was injured is protected by the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States constitution, the comparable provisions in Articles One and Seven of the Connecticut constitution, and General Statutes § 52–571b. The plaintiff counters in her memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss that her claims are not barred by the First Amendment, the Connecticut constitution or by General Statutes § 52–571b.

I

The First Amendment to the United States constitution provides in relevant part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” In addition, Article First, § 3, of the constitution of Connecticut provides in relevant part: “The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in the state....” The religious freedoms embraced in the First Amendment to the United States constitution apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303–304, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). “The values underlying these two provisions relating to religion have been zealously protected, sometimes even at the expense of other interests of admittedly high social importance.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 214, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). “[T]he first amendment has been interpreted broadly to severely [circumscribe] the role that civil courts may play in resolving ... disputes concerning issues of religious doctrine and practice.... Under both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, the first amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving disputed issues of religious doctrine and practice.... By contrast, exercise of governmental authority is permissible if it (1) has a secular purpose, (2) neither inhibits nor advances religion as its primary effect and (3) does not create excessive entanglement between church and state.... Under excessive entanglement analysis, civil tort claims requiring courts to review and to interpret religious doctrine and practices are barred by the first amendment.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Thibodeau v. American Baptist Churches of Connecticut, 120 Conn.App. 666, 671, 994 A.2d 212, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 901, 3 A.3d 74 (2010). Freedom of religion is guaranteed to individuals as well as churches, which have “power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of ... faith and doctrine.” Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 116, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952).

A

The defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims are barred by the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and by article first, § 3, of the constitution of Connecticut. Specifically, the defendants argue that the subject matter of the dispute is ecclesiastical in nature, and that analysis of the plaintiff's claims would constitute impermissible State entanglement with religious issues. The plaintiff counters that her claims are not barred under either the First Amendment of the United States constitution or Article First, § 3, of the Connecticut constitution because the subject matter of the dispute is not ecclesiastical but is instead grounded in simple negligence. The plaintiff claims that the Free Exercise clause does not apply to the instant case because “[t]here is nothing in the allegations of the complaint nor [the] facts of the incident that could possibly contemplate the examination of worship or spirituality.”

“The free exercise of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires. Thus, the First Amendment obviously excludes all ‘governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such’.... The government may not compel affirmation of religious belief ... punish the expression of religious doctrines it believes to be false ... impose special disabilities on the basis of religious views or religious status ... or lend its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious authority or dogma....” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original.) Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon...