193 Conn.App. 171
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Shortly after midnight, Daley rode an unroadworthy yellow motorcycle (no headlights, off-road tires) with a group when Hartford Detective Zachary Kashmanian surveilled the group in an unmarked “soft” Acura (no lights/siren).
- A confidential informant reported a gun on a yellow motorcycle; Kashmanian was ordered to surveil the group and followed them onto Sumner Street.
- Kashmanian sideswiped another vehicle, was told over the radio to "just keep going," then drove 40–50 mph in a 25 mph zone and crossed the center line into the wrong lane to stay near Daley.
- Kashmanian’s car struck the rear tire of Daley’s motorcycle, propelling Daley ~95 feet and causing serious injuries; there were no skid marks indicating braking.
- Daley sued for negligence and common-law recklessness; the trial court directed a verdict for Kashmanian on recklessness, the jury found for Daley on negligence, and the court later set aside that verdict on governmental immunity grounds. Daley appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict on recklessness was proper | Daley: evidence (speeding, wrong‑lane driving, following too closely, failing to brake) supported an inference of conscious disregard and recklessness | Kashmanian: actions were within police surveillance duties and undertaken at supervisor direction, not reckless | Court: Directed verdict was improper — sufficient evidence for jury to find recklessness; reverse on that point and remand for new trial on recklessness |
| Whether negligence verdict is barred by governmental immunity | Daley: motor vehicle statutes impose ministerial duties; no immunity | Defendants: surveillance and driving choices involved discretionary police judgment; immunity applies | Court: Affirmed — Kashmanian’s surveillance was discretionary (no directive mandating specific conduct), so §52‑557n immunity bars negligence claim |
| Whether absence of §14‑283 lights/siren exemption makes traffic statutes ministerial | Daley: because §14‑283 sets specific exemptions, absent those an officer must obey all traffic laws (ministerial) | Defendants: §14‑283 governs only emergency/pursuit; surveillance situations require on‑the‑spot judgment about safety vs. surveillance needs | Held: Court rejected automatic ministerial rule; §14‑283 does not convert all driving into ministerial duties—analysis is fact‑specific |
Key Cases Cited
- Curran v. Kroll, 303 Conn. 845 (Conn. 2012) (standard of review and principles for directed verdicts and deference to jury)
- Matthiessen v. Vanech, 266 Conn. 822 (Conn. 2003) (definition and standard for recklessness/wanton misconduct)
- Ventura v. East Haven, 330 Conn. 613 (Conn. 2019) (discretionary‑act immunity framework under §52‑557n)
- Northrup v. Witkowski, 332 Conn. 158 (Conn. 2019) (distinguishing ministerial duties from discretionary duties; requirement of a directive compelling a specific response)
- Strycharz v. Cady, 323 Conn. 548 (Conn. 2016) (official’s subjective testimony insufficient to establish a ministerial duty absent a directive)
- Brooks v. Powers, 328 Conn. 256 (Conn. 2018) (overview of §52‑557n immunity and when municipalities may be liable)
- Wu v. Fairfield, 204 Conn. 435 (Conn. 1987) (municipal indemnification under §7‑465 depends on prior finding of individual negligence)
- O’Connor v. City of New York, 280 A.D.2d 309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001) (out‑of‑state authority where high‑speed, wrong‑way unmarked driving supported reckless claim)
- Jackson v. Lipsey, 834 So. 2d 687 (Miss. 2003) (out‑of‑state authority finding similar driving facts sufficient for reckless misconduct claim)