Myers v. City of Hartford
Decision Date | 10 August 2004 |
Docket Number | (AC 23922). |
Citation | 84 Conn. App. 395,853 A.2d 621 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | ELEANOR MYERS v. CITY OF HARTFORD ET AL. |
Foti, Flynn and McLachlan, Js.
Sydney T. Schulman, with whom, on the brief, was Jessica J. York, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Andrew J. Schneider, for the appellees (defendants).
The plaintiff, Eleanor Myers, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendants, the city of Hartford, Edward Grodecki and Saundra Keye Borges. The plaintiff claims that the directed verdict was granted improperly on the basis of qualified municipal immunity because the court analyzed the plaintiff's claims under General Statutes § 52-557n (a) (2), rather than under General Statutes § 7465, the terms of which do not allow for this type of municipal immunity. The plaintiff also claims that even if the court had analyzed the issues under the proper statute, the actions of the municipality's employees fall within exceptions to this type of immunity. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In April 1999, in response to several complaints about roaming dogs, Grodecki, an animal control officer for the city of Hartford, removed a dog from the plaintiff's premises. After being informed by a neighbor that the plaintiff was the animal's owner, Grodecki waited approximately five minutes for the plaintiff to return home. When she did not appear, he removed the dog to a veterinary clinic and ordered that the animal be euthanized, allegedly because the animal was in such poor physical condition that the only humane alternative was to put the animal down. He did not seek authorization for the euthanization from a veterinarian as required by General Statutes § 22-329a. In addition, Grodecki never informed the owner of his seizure and custody of the dog and did not place an advertisement in a newspaper in an effort to identify the animal's owner. Several days later, the plaintiff learned that her dog had been euthanized.
The plaintiff subsequently brought an action against Grodecki and Borges in their official capacities as animal control officer and city manager, respectively, for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and against the municipality as indemnitor for its employees. After presentation of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the defendants filed a motion for a directed verdict. On January 24, 2003, the court heard arguments and granted the motion, ruling that the defendants were protected by qualified municipal immunity, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-557n (a) (2). Judgment was rendered for the defendants. The plaintiff now appeals.
(Citation omitted.) See DeLeo v. Nusbaum, 263 Conn. 588, 593, 821 A.2d 744 (2003).
The plaintiff claims that the directed verdict was granted improperly on the basis of qualified municipal immunity because her claims should have been evaluated under § 7-465, as pleaded by the plaintiff, which does not allow for qualified governmental immunity, rather than under § 52-557n (a) (2), on which the court relied in directing a verdict for the defendants. We agree with the plaintiff that § 7-465 is the proper analytical reference, but disagree with her claim that the individual defendants could not raise the defense of qualified governmental immunity. We find, however, that her claim fails on other grounds.1
Section 7-465 provides in relevant part:
The court analyzed the claims under § 52-557n (a), which provides in relevant part:
Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179, 185, 592 A.2d 912 (1991).
Our Supreme Court has not found the legislative history of § 52-557n helpful and has concluded that it is unclear whether the statute's limitation on the liability of political subdivisions is intended to supersede provisions of the indemnification statute, § 7-465. Id., 188. Id.
Without the guidance of legislative history, we must look to the language of §§ 7-465 and 52-557n to determine a workable and logical interpretation of the interplay between these two statutes and the common law. "[W]e presume that the legislature intends sensible results from the statutes it enacts." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hibner v. Bruening, 78 Conn. App. 456, 459, 828 A.2d 150 (2003). With this in mind, we conclude that the plaintiff is correct that the court improperly analyzed her claims under § 52-557n. This section deals...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grady v. Town of Somers
...648, 653-60, 943 A.2d 507 (2008) (resolving case on basis of distinction between discretionary and ministerial acts); Myers v. Hartford, 84 Conn.App. 395, 401, 853 A.2d 621 ("employee immunity for discretionary acts is identical to the municipality's immunity for its employees' discretionar......
-
Holeman v. City of New London
...found to be liable and the employee's actions do not fall within the exception for wilful and wanton acts." Myers v. City of Hartford, 84 Conn.App. 395, 399, 400, 853 A.2d 621 (2004). Defendants' motion is denied with respect to plaintiffs' claims brought pursuant to Section 7-465. Defendan......
-
Odom v. Matteo
...acts, provided that the employee's actions do not fall within an exception for willful and wanton acts. See Myers v. City of Hartford, 84 Conn.App. 395, 400, 853 A.2d 621 (2004). Had Odom intended to assert only an official capacity claim against Maffeo, her claims against Waterford for ind......
-
Strickland v. Kathryn
...P.3d 272, 278–79 (Ct.App.2009); McMahon v. Craig, 176 Cal.App.4th 1502, 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 555, 566–68 (2009); Myers v. City of Hartford, 84 Conn.App. 395, 853 A.2d 621, 626 (2004); Naples v. Miller, 2009 WL 1163504, at *2–4 (Del.Super.Ct. Apr. 30, 2009), aff'd,992 A.2d 1237 (Del.2010); Kennedy......
-
Valuing Nature in Environmental Law: Lessons for Animal Law and the Valuation of Animals
...272, 278-79 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009); McMahon v. Craig, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1502, 1517-20 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009); Myers v. City of Hartford, 84 Conn. App. 395, 853 Valuing Nature in Environmental Law 259 environmental context that demonstrated loss of noneconomic and intrinsic value of property ca......