Cole v. New Haven, 337 Conn. 326

Background:

On July 16, 2011, New Haven police officer Nikki Curry pulled her cruiser diagonally across the double yellow line into the southbound lane directly in front of a group of ~7 dirt bikes/quads; to avoid collision the plaintiff rode onto the sidewalk, lost control, and sustained severe injuries.
Plaintiff sued the City of New Haven and Curry for negligence, alleging Curry executed a roadblock/pursuit in violation of New Haven General Order No. 94-2, state pursuit regulations (Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 14-283a-4(d)(5)), and traffic statutes.
New Haven General Order forbids roadblocks except to save human life; the Statewide Policy forbids roadblocks unless a supervisor specifically authorizes one.
Sgt. Carlos Maldonado testified the department policy was not to pursue dirt bikes/quads on public roads, to follow but not chase, and that a complete roadblock (without an opening) violates department training.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming discretionary-act governmental immunity under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n(a)(2)(B); the trial court granted summary judgment, finding Curry’s actions discretionary or not a ‘‘pursuit.’’
The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed: it held the city and state pursuit/roadblock rules create ministerial duties and that a genuine factual dispute exists whether a ‘‘pursuit’’ (and thus a policy violation) occurred; Maldonado’s testimony was admissible to show a ministerial duty.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer’s conduct was discretionary or ministerial under pursuit/roadblock policies	Curry violated bright‑line policies (no roadblocks; no pursuit of dirt bikes); those create ministerial duties	Officer’s response was discretionary policing judgment, so municipal immunity applies	The policies’ roadblock and dirt‑bike directives are ministerial; summary judgment improper because factual dispute exists whether a pursuit/roadblock occurred
Whether a "pursuit" occurred (predicate for applying the pursuit policies)	Curry activated lights/siren and used cruiser to stop riders → constituted an attempt to apprehend (a pursuit)	This was a traffic control maneuver, not a chase or pursuit; policies therefore inapplicable	There is a genuine issue of material fact on whether Curry engaged in a pursuit; resolution for factfinder at trial
Whether Maldonado’s testimony could establish existence of a ministerial duty despite not being Curry’s direct supervisor	Maldonado’s rank, training, scene response, and unequivocal testimony show department policy forbidding pursuits/roadblocks for dirt bikes	Maldonado was not Curry’s direct supervisor and his testimony is vague/insufficient (relying on Ventura)	Maldonado’s testimony was probative and, viewed favorably to plaintiff, establishes a ministerial duty for summary judgment purposes
Whether identifiable‑victim/imminent‑harm exception to discretionary immunity was established	Plaintiff argued exception applies (he was an identifiable victim facing imminent harm)	Defendants said no identifiable‑victim showing; therefore immunity applies	Court did not decide the exception because it found ministerial duty issue dispositive; exception not reached on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Borelli v. Renaldi, 336 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2020) (recent treatment of ministerial vs. discretionary duties in police pursuit context)
Ventura v. East Haven, 330 Conn. 613 (Conn. 2019) (limits on using non‑supervisor testimony to establish ministerial duty; context on discretionary policing decisions)
Strycharz v. Cady, 323 Conn. 548 (Conn. 2016) (municipal official’s testimony can establish a ministerial duty when unequivocal)
Coley v. Hartford, 312 Conn. 150 (Conn. 2014) (recognition of broad police discretion in operational decisions)
Mumm v. Mornson, 708 N.W.2d 475 (Minn. 2006) (recognizes policies can eliminate discretion and create ministerial duties in emergency policing)
Shore v. Stonington, 187 Conn. 147 (Conn. 1982) (illustrates discretionary nature of many policing decisions)