Segreto v. Bristol
Decision Date | 27 August 2002 |
Docket Number | (AC 22081) |
Citation | 71 Conn. App. 844,804 A.2d 928 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | FRANCES SEGRETO v. CITY OF BRISTOL |
Foti, Mihalakos and Flynn, Js.
Donald R. Holtman, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Daniel C. DeMerchant, for the appellee (defendant).
In this negligence action, the plaintiff, Frances Segreto, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant city of Bristol (city) on its special defense of governmental immunity. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly determined that the city was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff's complaint alleged that the city negligently had performed a discretionary act, rather than a ministerial act, and the city was, therefore, immune from liability pursuant to General Statutes § 52-557n (a) (2) (B). We answer that question in the affirmative and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff filed a one count complaint against the city, alleging that she had sustained injuries in a fall on a stairway located on the premises of a senior center that was owned and operated by the city.1 She further alleged that her fall and resulting injuries were due to the negligence of the city or its employees. The city filed an answer, denying that it was negligent in any of the ways alleged by the plaintiff, and three special defenses,2 one of which was that the plaintiffs claim was barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity both at common law and pursuant to § 52-557n.3 Thereafter, the city filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its special defense of governmental immunity. Along with its motion for summary judgment, the city submitted the affidavit of Steven Rybczyk, the city's claims and loss coordinator, who attested that although the city was responsible for the inspection, maintenance and repair of the stairway, it did not have a policy or procedure in place for maintaining, inspecting or repairing the stairway, except for snow and ice removal. The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment on the ground of governmental immunity after concluding as a matter of law that the plaintiffs complaint alleged that the city negligently had performed a discretionary act, rather than a ministerial act, and that her claim did not fit within the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the qualified immunity from liability that a city enjoys for the discretionary acts of its employees.4 This appeal followed.
Before we turn to the issue raised by the plaintiff in this appeal, we first set forth the applicable standard of review. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Elliott v. Waterbury, 245 Conn. 385, 391, 715 A.2d 27 (1998). "The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue [of] material facts which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law ... and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Rivera v. Double A Transportation, Inc., 248 Conn. 21, 24, 727 A.2d 204 (1999).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) New Haven Savings Bank v. LaPlace, 66 Conn. App. 1, 6, 783 A.2d 1174, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 942, 786 A.2d 426 (2001). Because the court in the present case rendered judgment for the city as a matter of law after finding that the complaint alleged that the city had negligently failed to perform a discretionary function, our review is plenary.
We now turn to the merits of the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly determined that because her complaint alleged that the city negligently had failed to perform a discretionary act, the city was immune from liability pursuant to § 52-557n (a) (2) (B). She argues that the city's failure to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, as a matter of law,5 constitutes the failure to perform a ministerial function and, therefore, that the city was liable pursuant to § 52-557n (a) (1) (A) for injuries resulting from its failure to do so. She further argues that although the decision to devote public property to recreational use is discretionary in nature, the duty to maintain the property so devoted in a reasonably safe condition is always ministerial. We disagree.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tryon v. North Branford, 58 Conn. App. 702, 720-21, 755 A.2d 317 (2000).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Colon v. Board of Education, 60 Conn. App. 178, 180, 758 A.2d 900, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 908, 763 A.2d 1034 (2000). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 181.
Although the plaintiff relies on § 52-557n as the statutory source abrogating the city's governmental immunity, she cites no language within that statute that may be fairly interpreted to stand for the proposition that a municipality's failure to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition is, as a matter of law, ministerial, and our review of the text of that statute reveals no such language. We refuse to read a provision into the statute that the legislature itself has not expressed.
Nor does the plaintiff cite any case law interpreting § 52-557n that supports her position. She cites our Supreme Court's decision in Elliott v. Waterbury, supra, 245 Conn. 385, and this court's decision in Salaman v. Waterbury, 44 Conn. App. 211, 687 A.2d 1318 (1997), rev'd, 246 Conn. 298, 717 A.2d 161 (1998), and claims that those cases demonstrate that whenever a municipality acts as a landowner, the failure to maintain its property is the failure of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grady v. Town of Somers
...the trial court improperly concluded that the maintenance acts at issue were discretionary in nature. See, e.g., Segreto v. Bristol, 71 Conn.App. 844, 856-58, 804 A.2d 928, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 941, 808 A.2d 1132 (2002). Accordingly, we treat that conclusion as undisputed for purposes of......
-
Northrup v. Witkowski
...the manner in which the defendant is to perform reasonable and proper inspection and maintenance activities"); Segreto v. Bristol , 71 Conn. App. 844, 857–58, 804 A.2d 928 (city's allegedly negligent design and maintenance of stairwell located on premises of senior center that was owned and......
-
Brooks v. Powers
...fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Segreto v. Bristol, 71 Conn.App. 844, 848, 804 A.2d 928, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 941, 808 A.2d 1132 (2002). “A material fact ... [is] a fact which will make a difference in the res......
-
Vilton v. Burns, No. X06-CV-00-0169481 S (CT 6/22/2004)
...of a motion to strike on the grounds that the duty owed to the plaintiffs was discretionary, rather than ministerial and Segreto v. Bristol, 71 Conn.App. 844 (2002), in which the court affirmed the entry of summary judgment on the grounds of governmental immunity finding that the alleged mu......
-
Municipal Tort Liability and Immunity: Revisiting the "ministerial" Versus "discretionary" Distinction
...actor in question was permitted to use discretion in the performance of the particular duty. For example, Segreto v. City of Bristol, 71 Conn.App. 844, 804 A.2d 928 (2002), involved a plaintiff injured on a stairway. As part of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted an aff......
-
Significant Recent Tort Developments
...131 228 Conn. 640, 638 A. 2d 1 (1994). 132 244 Conn. 101, 708 A. 2d 937 (1998). 133 Doe, supra note 127, at 303. 134 Id. at 303-05. 135 71 Conn. App. 844, 845, 804 A. 2d 928, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 941, 808 A. 2d 1132 (2002). (fn136)Id. 137 Id. at 849. 138 Id. at 857-58. IX. LESSOR LIABILI......