206 Conn.App. 472
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Plaintiff Albert Buehler, a longtime certified volleyball referee, fell ~4–5 feet when an officiating stand collapsed during a varsity match at Newtown High School and suffered injuries.
- Referees were assigned through ArbiterSports and could accept or reject match assignments; two referees were normally assigned but matches sometimes proceeded with one.
- The officiating stand was assembled by students under supervision of the athletic director; there was no written setup policy. Plaintiff inspected the stand briefly before climbing it.
- Plaintiff sued the town, the board of education, and the athletic director for negligent maintenance, inspection, and failure to warn.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting discretionary-act governmental immunity under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n and that plaintiff did not fall within the narrow identifiable person–imminent harm exception. Trial court granted summary judgment; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buehler was an "identifiable person" under the identifiable person–imminent harm exception | Buehler: as an assigned referee he was compelled to be on premises and match could not proceed without officials, so he was an identifiable victim | Defendants: presence was voluntary (assignment could be declined); legal compulsion required by precedent is absent | Court: Not identifiable — presence voluntary and assignment choice distinguishes him from statutorily compelled schoolchildren |
| Whether defendants enjoy discretionary-act governmental immunity | Buehler: argued factual disputes (including ministerial vs discretionary duties) and exception may apply | Defendants: their acts were discretionary and immunity applies absent an identifiable victim/imminent harm | Court: defendants’ actions were discretionary and immunity applies because identifiable-victim element not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. New Haven, 328 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2018) (articulates three-part identifiable person–imminent harm test)
- Borelli v. Renaldi, 336 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2020) (policy basis and scope of discretionary-act immunity)
- Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 (Conn. 2009) (narrows identifiable-person inquiry; emphasis on legal compulsion)
- Cotto v. Board of Education, 294 Conn. 265 (Conn. 2009) (refuses to extend identifiable class beyond schoolchildren during school hours)
- Kusy v. Norwich, 192 Conn. App. 171 (Conn. App. 2019) (Appellate Court: contractual or occupational compulsion insufficient; limits identifiable class)
- Durrant v. Board of Education, 284 Conn. 91 (Conn. 2007) (parent picking up child from optional after-school care not an identifiable victim)