Spears v. Garcia
Decision Date | 01 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 16676.,16676. |
Citation | 263 Conn. 22,818 A.2d 37 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Tonisha SPEARS, et al. v. Beniga GARCIA, et al. |
Arthur C. Laske III, assistant city attorney, for the appellants (defendant city of Bridgeport et al.).
Karen E. Souza, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
Mary-Michelle U. Hirschoff filed a brief for the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities as amicus curiae.
Kathryn Calibey and Douglas W. Hammond filed a brief for the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.
The defendants,1 the city of Bridgeport and the Bridgeport fire department, appeal, upon our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the summary judgment in favor of the defendants rendered by the trial court based upon the failure of the plaintiffs, Tonisha Spears and Medina Spears,2 to cite in their complaint General Statutes § 525-57n3 as statutory authority abrogating the defendants' governmental immunity. Spears v. Garcia, 66 Conn. App. 669, 785 A.2d 1181 (2001). The defendants claim that, even if the Appellate Court properly determined that they otherwise had been given adequate notice of the plaintiffs' reliance on § 52-557n, that statute does not abrogate governmental immunity. We agree with the Appellate Court that § 52-557n allows the plaintiffs to bring a direct cause of action for negligence against the defendants and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
The Appellate Court opinion sets forth the following relevant facts and procedural history. "The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants for injuries that Tonisha Spears sustained on June 28, 1994. On that date, a motor vehicle struck her after she was pushed into the road by a high pressure stream of water flowing from a fire hydrant, which had been opened by an unauthorized person. The hydrant did not have a safety device or a cap to prevent unauthorized openings as of the date of the incident.
"The [trial] court granted the defendants' motion, holding that although Practice Book § 10-3(a) has been read as directory rather than mandatory, Williams is controlling on the present case." Spears v. Garcia, supra, 66 Conn.App. at 671-73, 785 A.2d 1181. Thereafter, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs' failure to plead § 52-557n in their complaint was not fatal under the circumstances of this case. Id., at 676, 785 A.2d 1181. Specifically, the Appellate Court determined that the trial court improperly had relied on Williams v. New Haven, supra, 243 Conn. at 763, 707 A.2d 1251, because, unlike the plaintiff in Williams, the plaintiffs in the present case had apprised the defendants sufficiently of their reliance on § 52-557n by raising the statute in their memorandum of law in opposition to the motion for summary judgment and in oral argument before the trial court.4 Spears v. Garcia, supra, at 676, 785 A.2d 1181.
As an alternate ground for affirmance, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs' reliance on § 52-557n as a basis for abrogating the defendants' immunity was improper. Id., at 677, 785 A.2d 1181. The Appellate Court disagreed, determining that § 52-557n abrogates governmental immunity, thus allowing a direct cause of action for negligence against the defendants. Id., at 680, 785 A.2d 1181. Thereafter, we granted the defendants' petition for certification, limited to the following question: "Does ... § 52-557n permit a plaintiff to bring a direct cause of action in negligence against a municipality?" Spears v. Garcia, 259 Conn. 915, 792 A.2d 852 (2002).
The certified question on appeal raises an issue of statutory construction and, therefore, our review is plenary. State v. Russo, 259 Conn. 436, 447, 790 A.2d 1132, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 79, 154 L.Ed. 2d 134 (2002). (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schiano v. Bliss Exterminating Co., 260 Conn. 21, 34, 792 A.2d 835 (2002).
Of particular relevance in this case is the related principle that (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Vitanza v. Upjohn Co., 257 Conn. 365, 381, 778 A.2d 829 (2001).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Williams v. New Haven, supra, 243 Conn. at 766-67, 707 A.2d 1251.
Against this background, we turn to the certified question: whether § 52-557n permits a plaintiff to bring a direct cause of action in negligence against a municipality. "As with all issues of statutory interpretation, we look first to the language of the statute." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gipson v. Commissioner of Correction, 257 Conn. 632, 639, 778 A.2d 121 (2001). The language of § 52-557n (a)(1) provides in relevant part: "Except as otherwise provided by law, a political subdivision of the state shall be liable for damages to person or property caused by: (A) The negligent acts or omissions of such political subdivision or any employee, officer or agent thereof acting within the scope of his employment or official duties...."
This language clearly and expressly abrogates the traditional common-law doctrine in this state that municipalities are immune from suit for torts committed by their employees and agents. Cf. Babes v. Bennett, 247 Conn. 256, 263-64, 721 A.2d 511 (1998) ( ); Skinner v. Angliker, 211 Conn. 370, 381, 559 A.2d 701 (1989) ( ). The presence of the savings clause, "except as otherwise provided by law," pertains only to state and federal statutes, not to the common law. Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners, 219 Conn. 179, 191-92, 592 A.2d 912 (1991). Therefore, the legislature has manifested its intention to abrogate governmental immunity under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wiltzius v. Town of New Milford
...Connecticut's sovereign immunity and allow a plaintiff to bring a direct cause of action against a municipality. Spears v. Garcia, 263 Conn. 22, 818 A.2d 37 (2003). By its terms, it does nothing to establish substantive grounds upon which a plaintiff can recover for his injuries. Count Fift......
-
Williams v. Hous. Auth. of Bridgeport
...that has long been a cornerstone of our public liability/immunity law. See, e.g., General Statutes § 4–165 (a) ; Spears v. Garcia , 263 Conn. 22, 36, 818 A.2d 37 (2003).Finally, having rejected the Appellate Court's possible impact standard for reckless disregard, we must resolve a dispute ......
-
State v. McCoy
...the courts. When a statute seeks to create or expand the court's jurisdiction, we narrowly construe the statute. See Spears v. Garcia , 263 Conn. 22, 28, 818 A.2d 37 (2003) (statute that creates cause of action that was not available at common law is strictly construed); H-K Properties, LLC......
-
Borelli v. Renaldi
..., supra, 332 Conn. at 166–77, 210 A.3d 29 ; Considine v. Waterbury , 279 Conn. 830, 836–44, 905 A.2d 70 (2006) ; Spears v. Garcia , 263 Conn. 22, 29–34, 818 A.2d 37 (2003). In the more recent decisions interpreting § 52-557n, we have recognized that our interpretation of the distinction bet......
-
2003 Connecticut Appellate Review
...90 (2003). St. George was followed in Flanagan v. Blumenthal, 265 Conn. 350, 828 A.2d 572 (2003). 39 263 Conn. 74, 818 A.2d 758 (2003). 40 263 Conn. 22, 818 A.2d 37 (2003). 41 262 Conn. 312, 813 A.2d 1003 (2003). 42 In response to the Court's decision in Craig v. Driscoll, the legislature p......
-
Tort Developments in 2009
...60. Id. at 272-73. 61. Id. at 274. 62. Id. at 279-80. 63. 294 Conn. 324, 984 A.2d 684 (2009). 64. Id. at 326-27. 65. 2 63 Conn. 22, 818 A.2d 37 (2003). 66. General Statutes Section 52-557n(a) provides: "(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, a political subdivision of the state shall b......
-
Significant Recent Tort Developments
...in failing to install safety devices on a fire hydrant and in failing to inspect it. (fn120) The 116 Id. at 340. 117 Id. at 344. 118 263 Conn. 22, 28-29, 818 A. 2d 37 (2003). 119 Id. at 25. 120 Id. Supreme Court stated that governmental immunity may be abrogated by statute and Section 52-55......
-
Advocating for Connecticut's Children During Their Parents' Divorces and Custody Disputes After Carrubba v. Moskowitz: the Past, the Present and the Future State of the Law for Attorneys for Minor Children and Guardians Ad Litem
...FN102Id. FN103Id. at 549, citing Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 272 Conn. 776, 790, 865 A.2d 1163 (2005) and Spears v. Garcia, 263 Conn. 22, 36, 818 A.2d 37 (2003). FN104Id. at 541. FN105Id. The Court explained that the legislature granted public defenders qualified immunity in 19......