Friends of Animals, Inc. v. United Illuminating Co.
124 Conn. App. 823
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Plaintiff Friends of Animals, Inc. sought declaratory and injunctive relief to restrain defendant United Illuminating Co. from gassing, killing or capturing monk parakeets nesting on power lines.
- Parakeets had nested on the defendant’s electrical infrastructure in West Haven, Milford, Stratford and Bridgeport; nests were alleged to be a public safety hazard.
- Plaintiff alleged defendant failed to implement feasible measures to deter nesting and that its capture/killing program harmed the parakeet population and public trust in natural resources.
- Trial proceeded over three days; plaintiff presented Smith (expert), Feral (plaintiff president), Dwyer (volunteer) and excerpts from Manning’s deposition; defendant produced witnesses and an expert but invoked evidentiary rules.
- Court dismissed the action under Practice Book § 15-8 for failure to make a prima facie case, after questioning the sufficiency of plaintiff’s proof and noting lack of alternatives developed by plaintiff’s experts.
- Plaintiff sought articulation; court clarified that it viewed defendant’s conduct as not reasonably likely to unreasonably impair the public trust, and that parakeets on electrical equipment were not protected by the wild bird act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused its discretion on deposition evidence | Exclusion of employee and expert depositions; admission of Newman deposition; denial of calling Newman as own witness. | Rulings consistent with Practice Book and evidence rules; credibility concerns and late disclosure justify restrictions. | No abuse; rulings proper under evidence rules and trial management. |
| Whether court properly granted dismissal for failure to prove prima facie case | Plaintiff presented witnesses and expert testimony showing potential negligent/impermissible conduct. | Plaintiff failed to show an unreasonable impairment of the public trust under § 22a-16 and no feasible prudent alternative; wild bird act § 26-92 controls standard. | Affirmed; plaintiff did not establish prima facie case under § 22a-16 in light of § 26-92 applicability. |
| Whether court properly relied on the wild bird act as the standard for unreasonableness under § 22a-16 | Wild bird act does not provide standard for unreasonableness; rely on general environmental statute. | Wild bird act governs conduct and provides the standard; parakeets on electrical equipment fall outside its protection when hazardous. | Affirmed; court properly applied § 26-92 as controlling standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gateway Co. v. DiNoia, 232 Conn. 223 (1995) (trial court has discretion to admit or exclude deposition testimony)
- Krevis v. Bridgeport, 262 Conn. 813 (2003) (deference to trial court case management decisions)
- Waterbury v. Washington, 260 Conn. 506 (2002) (unreasonable impairment standard under 22a-16; relevance of regulatory scheme)
- Windels v. Environmental Protection Commission, 284 Conn. 268 (2007) (plaintiff must prove impairment of public trust beyond de minimis)
- Cadle Co. v. D'Addario, 268 Conn. 441 (2004) (burden of proof and prima facie case framed in context of 22a-16)
- Moss v. Foster, 96 Conn.App. 369 (2006) (standard for prima facie case under Practice Book § 15-8)
- Berchtold v. Maggi, 191 Conn. 266 (1983) (trial court's authority to weigh evidence and rule on admissibility)