Gartrell v. City of Hartford, 182 Conn. App. 526

Plaintiffs Joseph Gartrell and Wonder Package, LLC owned a mixed-use building in Hartford that was heavily damaged by a gasoline-accelerated fire; the Hartford building official concluded the roof and structure were compromised.
The city issued notice(s) after the fire and, finding an imminent danger under §116.4 of the State Building Code, ordered demolition; demolition occurred Feb 19–Mar 3, 2011.
Plaintiffs sued (claims included violations of the State Building Code and deprivation of due process) and went to trial in 2016; after plaintiffs rested the city moved for a directed verdict on the ground the city acted under an emergency.
The court reserved the motion, heard the city’s witnesses, then—after conferring with counsel in chambers—presented the jury with a single interrogatory asking whether the jury found that the city "could believe" an imminent danger or emergency existed.
The jury answered "yes." The court then granted the city’s motion for a directed verdict, relying on the jury answer and authorities including Brown v. Hartford and governmental immunity statute §52-557n. Plaintiffs appealed solely arguing the interrogatory wording did not permit a directed verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could direct a verdict based on the jury's affirmative answer to a single interrogatory that asked whether the city "could believe" an imminent danger existed (rather than whether the city actually did believe so)	The interrogatory was improperly worded; to support a directed verdict the jury should have been asked whether the city had proved it actually believed an imminent danger existed.	The court followed a disclosed procedure; plaintiffs had the opportunity to object but did not; the interrogatory and post-answer relief were proper given the emergency findings and immunity law.	Affirmed: claim forfeited for appellate review because plaintiffs failed to preserve the objection at trial (no on-the-record objection to the interrogatory, charge, or use of its answer as basis for directing verdict); court declines to reach merits.

Brown v. Hartford, 160 Conn. App. 677 (Conn. App. 2015) (applied by trial court to support post-deprivation process and emergency justification)
Guzman v. Yeroz, 167 Conn. App. 420 (Conn. App. 2017) (preservation rule: appellate courts generally will not review claims raised first on appeal)
West Haven Sound Development Corp. v. West Haven, 207 Conn. 308 (Conn. 1988) (declining to review unpreserved challenge to jury interrogatories where parties allowed opportunity to object and did not)
Mokonnen v. Pro Park, Inc., 113 Conn. App. 765 (Conn. App. 2009) (presumption of agreement where party repeatedly fails to object to interrogatories)
State v. Elson, 311 Conn. 726 (Conn. 2014) (Golding review prerequisites for claims not preserved)
Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, 289 Conn. 88 (Conn. 2008) (plain error doctrine not applied when party does not affirmatively request it)