Northrup v. Witkowski
Decision Date | 02 July 2019 |
Docket Number | SC 20023 |
Citation | 332 Conn. 158,210 A.3d 29 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | George W. NORTHRUP et al. v. Henry J. WITKOWSKI, Jr., et al. |
Joshua F. Gilman, Norwalk, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Thomas R. Gerarde, with whom, on the brief, was Beatrice S. Jordan, Hartford, for the appellees (defendants).
Aaron S. Bayer Hartford, and Tadhg Dooley, New Haven, filed a brief for the city of Bridgeport et al. as amici curiae.
Robinson, C.J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Kahn and Ecker, Js.
This certified appeal requires us to consider the continued vitality of this court's decision in Spitzer v. Waterbury , 113 Conn. 84, 88, 154 A. 157 (1931), which held that "[t]he work of constructing drains and sewers, as well as that of keeping them in repair, is ministerial, and the municipality is responsible for negligence in its performance." The plaintiffs, Helen M. Northrup, George W. Northrup, and Timothy Northrup,1 brought this action against the defendants, the borough of Naugatuck (town) and several town officials,2 claiming, inter alia, that the defendants' negligence in maintaining and repairing the town's storm drains and drainage pipes had caused the repeated flooding of the plaintiffs' residence. The plaintiffs now appeal, upon our granting of their petition for certification, 3 from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the negligence claims were barred because, under more recent cases refining and clarifying Spitzer , the maintenance of storm drains and drainage systems is a discretionary function subject to governmental immunity, rather than a ministerial function, the negligent performance of which can subject a municipality to liability. Northrup v. Witkowski , 175 Conn. App. 223, 250, 167 A.3d 443 (2017). We disagree with the plaintiffs' claim that the Appellate Court improperly failed to follow Spitzer because we conclude that decision must be overruled in light of modern case law governing the distinction between ministerial and discretionary duties. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court aptly sets forth the following facts and procedural history. "The plaintiffs reside on property located in the town at 61 Nettleton Avenue. On eight different occasions between 2009 and 2012, the plaintiff's property was damaged when surface rainwater and/or ‘black water’4 inundated the property because the single catch basins in the area routinely became clogged or inadequately redirected water away from the property.
(Footnote in original.) Id., at 226–27, 167 A.3d 443.
On June 4, 2013, the plaintiffs filed the operative second amended complaint alleging negligence against Henry J. Witkowski, Stewart, and the town, and recklessness against the individual defendants. See footnote 2 of this opinion. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress against Witkowski, Stewart, and the town.
"The plaintiffs filed an objection to the motion for summary judgment on November 18, 2015, arguing with respect to the negligence counts that there remained genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants were exercising ministerial or discretionary duties and, if discretionary, whether the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity applied." Northrup v. Witkowski , supra, 175 Conn. App. at 228–29, 167 A.3d 443.
The trial court acknowledged this court's decision in Spitzer v. Waterbury , supra, 113 Conn. at 88, 154 A. 157, holding that the repair and maintenance of drainage systems is a ministerial function, but concluded that more recent cases had "refined [the] analysis of the relationship and differences between ministerial and discretionary acts ...." Silberstein v. 54 Hillcrest Park Associates, LLC , 135 Conn. App. 262, 272, 41 A.3d 1147 (2012). The trial court concluded that, under those more recent cases, the repair and maintenance of drainage systems are discretionary unless an ordinance "prescribe[s] the manner in which the drainage systems are to be maintained ...." (Emphasis in original.)
5 Northrup v. Witkowski , supra, 175 Conn. App. at 230, 167 A.3d 443.
The Appellate Court held that Northrup v. Witkowski , supra, 175 Conn. App. at 235, 167 A.3d 443. The court ultimately concluded that, "although there is language in § 16-32 of the [Naugatuck Code of Ordinances] that requires the streets commission to maintain and repair the town's storm water sewer system, the ordinance contains no provisions that mandate the time or manner in which those responsibilities are to be executed, leaving such details to the discretion and judgment of the municipal employees." Id., at 238, 167 A.3d 443.
The Appellate Court then acknowledged this court's statement in Spitzer v. Waterbury , supra, 113 Conn. at 88, 154 A. 157, that the repair and maintenance of drains and sewers are ministerial functions, but it concluded that Spitzer was distinguishable on its facts because it involved only the question of whether a drainage system "as it was planned could handle even ordinary amounts of rain," not whether the city had properly maintained and cleaned the system. Northrup v. Witkowski , supra, 175...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Borelli v. Renaldi
...to act in a] prescribed manner,’ the duty is deemed discretionary." (Citations omitted; footnote omitted.) Northrup v. Witkowski , 332 Conn. 158, 169–70, 210 A.3d 29 (2019)."In accordance with these principles, our courts consistently have held that to demonstrate the existence of a ministe......
-
Doe v. Bd. of Educ. of the Town of Westport
...of law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Northrup v. Witkowski , 175 Conn. App. 223, 249, 167 A.3d 443 (2017), aff'd, 332 Conn. 158, 210 A.3d 29 (2019). Even when we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Doe 1 plaintiffs, it does not demonstrate the existence of a genuine......
-
Daley v. Kashmanian
...that "itself limits discretion in the performance of the mandatory act." (Emphasis in original.) 280 A.3d 83 Northrup v. Witkowski , 332 Conn. 158, 187, 210 A.3d 29 (2019). Accordingly we now turn specifically to the rules of the road that are at issue in this case, as pleaded in the operat......
-
Kusy v. City of Norwich
...insufficient to show that the act is ministerial. Northrup v. Witkowski , 175 Conn. App. 223, 238, 167 A.3d 443 (2017), aff'd, 332 Conn. 158, 210 A.3d 29 (2019). Therefore, if there is no directive setting forth the manner in which a municipal official is to perform the act, then the act is......
-
2019 Appellate Review
...a 4-3 win by the State. [15] 331 Conn. 53, 202 A.3d 262, cert, denied, 140 S. Ct. 513 (2019). [16] 332 Conn. 1,208 A.3d 1197 (2019). [17] 332 Conn. 158,210 A.3d 29 (2019). [18] 332 Conn. 325, 210 A.3d 469 (2019). [19] 333 Conn. 816, 220 A.3d 1 (2019). [20] 334 Conn. 135, 164-77, 221 A.3d 1 ......
-
Recent Tort Developments
...[67] Id. at 637. [68] Id. at 639-40. [69] 189 Conn. App. 736, 747, 208 A.3d. 1279 (2019). [70] Id. at 747-48. [71] 332 Conn.158, 160-61, 210 A.3d 29 (2019). [72] 113 Conn. 84, 154 A. 157 (1931). Justice Ecker dissented. [73] Northrup, 332 Conn. at 160. [74] Id. at 161. [75] Id. at 185. [76]......