Stotler v. Dep't of Transp.

• Decision Date: 28 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. 33932.,33932.
• Citation: 70 A.3d 114,142 Conn.App. 826
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: Ellen STOTLER, Administratrix (Estate of Paul A. Stotler III) v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

142 Conn.App. 826

70 A.3d 114

Ellen STOTLER, Administratrix (Estate of Paul A. Stotler III)

v.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

No. 33932.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 28, 2012.

Decided May 28, 2013.

Ronald D. Williams, Jr., Trumbull, for the appellant (defendant).

Eric P. Smith, with whom, on the brief, were Michael A. Stratton and Joel T. Faxon, New Haven, for the appellee (plaintiff).

BEAR, ESPINOSA and BORDEN, Js.^*

ESPINOSA, J.

The plaintiff, Ellen Stotler, adminstratrix of the estate of the decedent, Paul A. Stotler III, commenced this action against the defendant, the department of transportation, to recover money damages under Connecticut's highway defect statute, General Statutes § 13a–144. The defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. The defendant claims that (1) the plaintiff's action should have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint were insufficient to state a cause of action under § 13a–144 and (2) it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the evidence demonstrated that the alleged highway defects were not the sole proximate cause of the decedent's injuries. We agree with the defendant's first claim and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

In her one count complaint, dated June 29, 2007, the plaintiff alleged, in relevant part, that on July 29, 2005, her decedent “was operating his motor vehicle easterly along Route 44, a public highway, in Avon, Connecticut, when a series of collisions occurred when a truck owned by American Crushing and Recycling, LLC, lost control as it traveled down Avon Mountain on Route 44 in Avon, Connecticut.” The plaintiff alleged that a resulting vehicular collision caused the death of her decedent.

Further, the plaintiff alleged that “[s]aid injuries and death occurred due to the neglect and/or default of the [s]tate of Connecticut, its [d]epartment of [t]ransportation, its [c]ommissioner of [t]ransportation Stephen E. Korta II, and/or its agent, servants and employees, by means of a defective road, in one or more of the following ways:

“(a) in that they utilized a plan of design, construction and/or repair for the area of Route 44 described above, adopted by the [s]tate of Connecticut and/or its employees, which was totally inadmissible, in that it created an unsafe condition;

“(b) in that they failed to provide adequate warnings and signage on the downhill grade on Route 44 before the intersection;

“(c) in that they failed to construct a necessary runaway truck ramp;

“(d) in that they failed to prohibit trucks on this roadway in the absence of other safeguards;

“(e) in that they failed to have, or failed to have adequate, procedures for maintaining the downhill slope in a safe condition;

“(f) in that they failed to train, or properly train, personnel in inspection of, or maintenance of, the signage and grade;

“(g) in that they failed to maintain, or properly maintain, the roadway for traffic upon it;

“(h) in that they failed to inspect, or properly inspect, the roadway so that it could be maintained or properly maintained;

“(i) in that they failed to train, or properly train, personnel to inspect the roadway so that it could be maintained or properly maintained; “(j) in that they failed to have, or failed to have adequate, procedures for inspecting and maintaining the roadway so as to be safe for vehicular traffic;

“(k) in that they failed to have procedures in place so adequate notice could be given to correct unsafe conditions on the roadway or so that the roadway could be closed;

“( l ) in that they failed to follow procedures which were intended to give adequate notice so that unsafe conditions on the roadway could be corrected, or the roadway closed;

“(m) in that they failed to provide adequate advance warning of said dangerous area to oncoming motorists so that they could avoid foreseeable out of control vehicles coming down the mountain;

“(n) in that they failed to close the road until conditions could be made safe for travel;

“( o ) in that they failed to follow practices and procedures set forth in the state's [p]olicy [m]anual;

“(p) in that they failed to properly supervise state agents, servants or employees who were responsible for maintaining the roadway in a safe condition, and/or

“(q) in that they failed to install visible street signage causing the truck to proceed down the mountain missing the turnoff.” For the injuries sustained by the decedent, the plaintiff sought money damages.¹

Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds arising from its sovereign immunity because the complaint merely alleged common-law negligence, not the existence of a defect that fell within the scope of § 13a–144. Specifically, the defendant argued that the plaintiff had alleged negligent conduct by the defendant that gave rise to a highway defect, but that the specific allegations in the complaint concerning the absence of certain safety measures as well as the deficient conduct of the defendant concerning the roadway did not relate to defects actionable under § 13a–144. Also, the defendant argued that it was entitled to judgment in its favor because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact existed that the claimed highway defects were the sole proximate cause of the decedent's injuries. The defendant argued that the plaintiff alleged that the collision between the American Crushing and Recycling, LLC, truck and the decedent caused his death. In addition, the defendant argued that the evidence was beyond dispute that negligent actions and omissions of the truck's owner, David Wilcox, led to the catastrophic brake failure that caused the collision. The defendant argued that the evidence “undeniably” demonstrated that such negligent conduct was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's death. The defendant attached documentary proof to its motion, pertaining to the issue of sole proximate cause. The plaintiff filed a written memorandum in opposition to the defendant's motion. Likewise, the plaintiff attached documentary proof to her objection. The defendant filed a written reply to the plaintiff's objection along with additional submissions of documentary proof.

Following a hearing related to the defendant's motion, the court issued a thorough memorandum of decision in which it denied the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. In denying the motion to dismiss, the court interpreted the complaint to allege that the plan of design of the portion of Route 44 at issue, specifically its steep downhill grade, was an intrinsic design defect which, for trucks, created an unacceptable risk of brake failure. The court concluded that such an allegation concerning the steep downhill grade brought the plaintiff's action within the scope of § 13a–144. Accordingly, the court rejected the defendant's claim that, because the state was immune from suit beyond the parameters of § 13a–144, the action was not properly before the court. In denying the motion for summary judgment, the court reasoned that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the allegedly defective condition of the highway was the sole proximate cause of the injuries at issue. This appeal followed.

I

First, the defendant argues that the plaintiff's action should have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint were insufficient to state a cause of action under § 13a–144. We agree.²

“The standard of review for a court's decision on a motion to dismiss is well settled. A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.... [O]ur review of the court's ultimate legal conclusion and resulting [determination] of the motion to dismiss will be de novo.... When a ... court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss, it must consider the allegations of the complaint in their most favorable light.... In this regard, a court must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint, including those facts necessarily implied from the allegations, construing them in a manner most favorable to the pleader.... The motion to dismiss ... admits all facts which are well pleaded, invokes the existing record and must be decided on that alone.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dept. of Education, 303 Conn. 402, 413, 35 A.3d 188 (2012).

“Sovereign immunity relates to a court's subject matter jurisdiction over a case, and therefore presents a question of law over which we exercise de novo review.... In so doing, we must decide whether [the trial court's] conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record.... The principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent, or sovereign immunity, is well established under our case law.... Not only have we recognized the state's immunity as an entity, but [w]e have also recognized that because the state can act only through its officers and agents, a suit against a state officer concerning a matter in which the officer represents the state is, in effect, against the state.... Exceptions to this doctrine are few and narrowly construed under our jurisprudence....

“[A] litigant that seeks to overcome the presumption of sovereign immunity must show that (1) the legislature, either expressly or by force of a necessary implication, statutorily waived the state's sovereign immunity ... or (2) in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief, the state officer or officers against whom such relief is sought acted in excess of statutory authority, or pursuant to an unconstitutional statute.... In making this determination, this...