Coley v. Hartford
95 A.3d 480
Conn.2014Background
- Orville Coley, administrator of Lorna Coley’s estate, sues the City of Hartford for wrongful death after Lorna Coley was shot during a domestic violence incident at 47 Bolton Street.
- Police responded to Williams’s DV complaint, spoke with residents, and later left to pursue an arrest warrant; approximately three hours later, Chapdelaine reappeared and shot Coley.
- Plaintiff alleges negligent police failure to remain at the scene for a reasonable time to mitigate ongoing risk, citing § 46b-38b and Hartford Police Department policy § III (B) (4).
- Defendant asserted governmental immunity under § 52-557n (a) (2) (B) because the duty to remain was discretionary, not ministerial.
- Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for Hartford, concluding the duty to remain was discretionary and immunized, even if owed to the decedent.
- Connecticut Supreme Court reviews whether the police response procedures create a ministerial or discretionary duty and whether immunity applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the duty to remain at the scene is ministerial or discretionary | Coley argues the policy’s 'shall remain' language creates a ministerial duty. | Hartford contends the duty is discretionary due to the officer’s judgment in 'reasonable time'. | Duty deemed discretionary; immunity applies. |
| Whether § 46b-38b and police procedures apply to this case | Plaintiff relies on DV statute and procedures to impose a mandatory duty to remain. | Procedures confer discretion; immunity remains intact. | Procedures apply but immunity governs discretionary acts. |
| Whether the identifiable person-imminent harm exception defeats immunity | Decedent could be an identifiable victim subject to imminent harm. | Claims fail; the trial court properly found no identifiable person-imminent harm exception. | Not reached; court treating duty as discretionary cures immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Petersen, 279 Conn. 607 (2006) (discretionary act immunity; ministerial vs discretionary)
- Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310 (2006) (ministerial duty defined; policy language and discretion)
- Bonington v. Westport, 297 Conn. 297 (2010) (discretionary vs ministerial duties; summary judgment standard)
- Mills v. The Solution, LLC, 138 Conn. App. 40 (2012) (shall vs discretion in public safety statute context)
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988) (deployment of police discretionary; general immunity context)