144 Conn. App. 430
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- On Sept. 30, 2007 a car driven by Sanchez crossed warning flares and struck a Pierce fire truck that Lucas (a volunteer firefighter) had parked diagonally blocking the center and right lanes of I-95 while assisting at an earlier accident; Sanchez and the decedent died.
- Lucas and another firefighter had placed flares (~100 feet) and were returning for cones when the collision occurred; Lucas testified he was instructed to block two lanes but used his judgment for exact placement and there were no written positioning procedures.
- Plaintiff (administratrix) sued Lucas and the town for wrongful death: counts for negligence (Lucas and town) and nuisance (town). Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting qualified governmental immunity and, as to the town, failure to prove proximate cause and failure to state a nuisance claim.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants: (1) Lucas shielded by qualified governmental immunity (discretionary act) and no applicable exception; (2) town likewise shielded and plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause for negligence; (3) plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie public-nuisance claim.
- Plaintiff appealed Lucas immunity and the nuisance ruling; she did not appeal the trial court’s adverse proximate-cause ruling as to the town, so negligence claims against the town were held moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lucas’s placement of the fire truck was ministerial (no immunity) or discretionary (qualified immunity applies) | Placement followed an instruction/standards and was routine, thus ministerial | Positioning requires on-scene judgment; no written rules; each incident differs, so discretionary | Discretionary — Lucas exercised judgment in positioning; qualified governmental immunity applies |
| Whether the identifiable person/imminent-harm exception to discretionary-act immunity applies | Decedent was an identifiable member of a foreseeable class (drivers on I-95) subject to imminent harm | Class of highway users is not a narrow/compelled class; exception limited and not met | Exception not met — highway users are not a narrowly defined identifiable class; immunity stands |
| Whether the town can be liable for public nuisance by blocking lanes with the fire truck | Blocking two lanes created a dangerous condition like in Kumah and thus was a nuisance | Plaintiff offered no evidence showing the truck’s positioning had a natural tendency to cause the injury or was unreasonable/unlawful; responders authorized to block lanes | No prima facie nuisance — plaintiff failed to prove the condition tended to create danger, proximate cause, or unreasonableness; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310 (discusses ministerial vs. discretionary acts and qualified immunity)
- Doe v. Petersen, 279 Conn. 607 (sets out three exceptions to discretionary-act immunity, including identifiable person/imminent harm)
- Kumah v. Brown, 307 Conn. 620 (permits nuisance claims under § 52-557n against municipalities for road-scene configurations and discusses similar facts)
- Picco v. Voluntown, 295 Conn. 141 (municipality must have by positive act created the nuisance to be liable)