225 Conn.App. 137
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Plaintiff operated a business transporting special needs children from her home between 2012 and 2015; defendant, a neighbor and DEA agent, became concerned about increased traffic and possible zoning violations.
- Defendant engaged in persistent surveillance of plaintiff's property, including 24/7 video recording, photography (often with zoom lens), creating a detailed daily log, and submitting complaints to local zoning authorities.
- Town zoning department issued a cease and desist order against the plaintiff in 2015 after the defendant's complaints.
- Plaintiff became aware of the surveillance, altered her and her family's behavior, and experienced significant distress, ultimately initiating civil litigation for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and other torts.
- Trial court found for plaintiff on the NIED claim, awarding $10,000 in damages; defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, the trial court's conduct, and the handling of his dismissal motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court's questioning of defendant | Issues not preserved or properly briefed by defendant; should not be reviewed. | Trial court improperly questioned defendant sua sponte beyond permissible scope. | Claim unpreserved and inadequately briefed; not reviewed. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for NIED | Defendant's pervasive, prolonged invasive surveillance foreseeably caused severe emotional distress. | Activities were of matters in public view and plaintiff failed to prove risk, foreseeability, severity, or causation. | Sufficient evidence supported finding of NIED; judgment for plaintiff affirmed. |
| Severity of distress / expert evidence | Plaintiff's testimony of devastation and lifestyle changes was sufficient. | Expert/medical evidence required; none provided. | No expert evidence required; plaintiff's testimony sufficient to meet standard. |
| Motion to dismiss not ruled on | Implied denial of the motion as judgment entered for plaintiff. | Appellate court should rule since trial court did not. | Motions to dismiss are for trial court; refusal to grant not appealable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrol v. Allstate Ins. Co., 262 Conn. 433 (Conn. 2003) (sets forth elements and burden for negligent infliction of emotional distress)
- Perodeau v. Hartford, 259 Conn. 729 (Conn. 2002) (emotional distress liability does not require physical injury)
- Montinieri v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 175 Conn. 337 (Conn. 1978) (addresses NIED standards and requirements)