Osborn v. City of Waterbury

• Decision Date: 03 December 2019
• Docket Number: SC 20129
• Citation: 333 Conn. 816,220 A.3d 1
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Tatayana OSBORN et al. v. CITY OF WATERBURY et al.

333 Conn. 816

220 A.3d 1

Tatayana OSBORN et al.

v.CITY OF WATERBURY et al.

SC 20129

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 27, 2019

Officially released December 3, 2019

Richard M. Franchi, New Haven, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Daniel J. Foster, acting assistant corporation counsel, for the appellees (named defendant et al.).

Robinson, C.J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.

MULLINS, J.

This appeal arises from an action filed by the plaintiffs, Tatayana Osborn (child), a minor child, by and through her mother, Tacarra Smith, alleging negligence on the part of the defendant city of Waterbury (city) and the defendant Waterbury Board of Education (board) for injuries sustained by the child during an altercation with other students during recess at a Waterbury public school.¹ In this certified appeal,² we must determine whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that expert testimony was necessary to establish the standard of care in this negligence action. We conclude that, under the facts of the present case, expert testimony was not necessary. Accordingly, we reverse the Appellate Court's judgment and remand the case to that court for consideration of the remaining issues on appeal.

The opinion of the Appellate Court, as supplemented by the record, sets forth the following facts and procedural history. "On April 25, 2012, the child was an elementary school student when she was assaulted by other students while they were on the playground during the lunchtime recess. As a result of the assault, the child sustained a cut to her face that required sutures ... and [that] resulted in scarring. The plaintiffs commenced the present action against the city [and] the board, [among others]." Osborn v. Waterbury , 181 Conn. App. 239, 241–42, 185 A.3d 675 (2018). In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' injuries and damages "were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant[s] in that [they] ... failed to adequately supervise the children both in and out of the classroom, including the [child]."

"The parties tried the case to the court. Following the presentation of evidence, the court issued a memorandum of decision in which it found that the child was a fifth grade student at Sprague Elementary School in Waterbury when she was assaulted by two or more students on the playground. The playground was surrounded by brick walls and fencing, and, following lunch, students occupied the area for play and exercise. More specifically, the child was surrounded by a circle of students who physically assaulted her and pushed her into a stone wall, causing injuries to her nose and cheek with resulting facial scarring. The child experienced posttraumatic headaches for a sustained period of time, but the most serious effect of this schoolyard assault was its lingering effect on the child's emerging personality and self-image.

"The court also found that Danielle Avalos, a school paraprofessional, was assigned to monitor the students on the playground during recess. She was not provided with written documents that listed her duties during the lunchtime recess. Her two day professional development training occurred prior to the first day of school and focused on the forms of student bullying and the need to distinguish between bullying and students merely ‘picking on’ other students or otherwise being unkind to them." Osborn v. Waterbury , supra, 181 Conn. App. at 242–43, 185 A.3d 675.

The trial court found that "[t]here was also no evidence to suggest that only portions of the student body were released for [lunch] at a given time; it is more likely the student body ate together in the [lunch] room and then went outside for recreation—in large numbers." The trial court further found that, "[a]t the time of the incident, classroom teachers were on [lunch] recess (and there was no evidence to establish that staff lunch times were staggered). The court concludes that 1 student intern and 3 or 4 staff members were not sufficient to exercise control over as many as 400 students [on the playground]."

"With respect to the incident during which the child was injured, the court found that Avalos saw a student repeatedly punch the child in the face and push her into a wall. A precis prepared by the nursing division of the Waterbury Health Department referenced, ‘a large, deep cut on the [child's] left cheek’ and ‘a cut of lesser depth on the bridge of her nose.’ " Osborn v. Waterbury , supra, 181 Conn. App. at 243–44, 185 A.3d 675. The court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

After trial, the defendants sought an articulation from the trial court pursuant to Practice Book §§ 61-10 and 66-5. Specifically, the defendants requested that the trial court articulate "(1) whether the court found either or both of the individual defendants who remain in the case to be liable for the plaintiffs' injuries and losses, and, if so, on what basis, and (2) whether the court found that the plaintiffs' injuries and losses were caused by the fact, as found by the court, that the number of adults present on the playground where the injuries took place was insufficient to exercise proper control over the number of students present."

The trial court responded to the defendants' request for articulation as follows:

(1) "This court did not find any remaining individual (specifically ... Avalos or Donna Perreault) was liable for the plaintiffs' injuries or losses ....

(2) "This court found [that] the injuries and/or losses were as a result of the [city's] failure to exercise proper control over the number of students present.

(3) "The court (in [an] August 12, 2016 ruling) found [that] the plaintiffs' injuries were caused by insufficient staffing of personnel to exercise proper control over the number of students on the playground at the time (perhaps as many as 400 students) ....

(4) "The court concluded [that] the injuries to the plaintiffs were proximately caused by an insufficient number of staff personnel—to monitor the actions of students on the playground on the date of injury." (Citation omitted; emphasis in original.)

The defendants appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, claiming that "the trial court improperly (1) rejected their special defense of governmental immunity for discretionary acts, (2) concluded that the plaintiffs' injuries were caused when an inadequate number of adults were assigned to supervise up to 400 students when there was evidence that there were no more than 50 students on the playground, (3) found in the absence of expert testimony that 1 student intern and 3 or 4 staff members were insufficient to control as many as 400 students on the playground, and (4) awarded damages intended to encourage continued therapy and occupational training for the child in the absence of evidence that she would need such services in the future." Osborn v. Waterbury , supra, 181 Conn. App. at 241, 185 A.3d 675.

The Appellate Court concluded, "as a matter of law, that without expert testimony, the court could not properly have found that the defendants breached their duty of care to the child [on the basis that] there was an inadequate number of adults on the playground to supervise the students at the time the child was injured." Id. As a result, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case with direction to render judgment for the defendants. Id., at 247, 185 A.3d 675. The Appellate Court did not reach any of the defendants' other claims on appeal. This certified appeal followed.

On appeal to this court, the plaintiffs assert that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that, without expert testimony, the trial court could not determine that the defendants breached their duty of care to the child. The defendants respond that the Appellate Court correctly determined that expert testimony was necessary to establish the standard of care. We agree with the plaintiffs that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court could not determine that the defendants breached their duty of care to the child without expert testimony.

Before we begin our analysis, it is important to clarify two points. First, we read the plaintiff's complaint and the trial court's ruling thereon to involve a claim of inadequate supervision. Unlike the defendants and the Appellate Court, we understand the trial court's response to the request for articulation, namely, that "the injuries and/or losses were as a result of the [city's] failure to exercise proper control over the number of students present," as a conclusion that there was inadequate supervision, not that there was solely an inadequate number of staff on the playground.³ Such a conclusion is consistent with the well established principle that "we read the record in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's judgment." Weiss v. Smulders , 313 Conn. 227, 232 n.2, 96 A.3d 1175 (2014). As a result, we consider whether expert testimony was required for the plaintiffs' negligence claim of inadequate supervision.⁴

Second, we understand that the linchpin of the Appellate Court's decision is that, because schools are highly regulated areas, expert testimony was required. We disagree that the fact that a particular area is highly regulated necessarily means that expert testimony is required for claims of negligence arising in that area. Rather, we conclude that, irrespective of the heightened regulations of a particular field, whether expert testimony is required to support a claim of negligence turns on whether the alleged claim of error is within the common knowledge of a layperson.⁵

"As an initial matter, we note that the [trial] court's determination of whether expert testimony was needed to support the plaintiff's claim of negligence against the defendant was a legal determination, and, thus, our review is plenary." (Internal quotation marks...