Haynes v. City of Middletown
2013 WL 1963868
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Following a physical education class, Vereen was injured when pushed into a broken, jagged, rusted locker edge in the boys’ locker room; the locker had been broken since the start of the school year.
- The plaintiff asserted municipal negligence and that the defendant’s agents were negligent; the defendant pleaded governmental immunity and comparative negligence.
- The locker’s condition allegedly allowed exposure to students and had rusted edges; the injury left Vereen with a scar.
- A jury awarded Vereen verdict in 2008 with 33% fault attributed to Vereen; the defendant then moved to set aside the verdict and for judgment in its favor.
- The trial court granted the motion, setting aside the verdict and rendering judgment for the defendant; on remand, the appellate court held the defendant did not waive immunity and that there was insufficient evidence of imminent harm to invoke the identifiable victim, imminent harm exception.
- The Supreme Court later remanded for briefing on pleading issues, directing consideration of the identifiable victim, imminent harm issue after briefing; on remand, the court resolved the issues in favor of the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of immunity by not requesting a charge | Haynes argues defendant waived immunity by not requesting a jury instruction | Middletown contends waiver cannot be implied where there is no evidentiary basis for a charge | No waiver; no evidentiary basis to instruct on immunity or exception |
| Imminent harm sufficient to fit the identifiable victim exception | Vereen and class members faced imminent harm from the broken locker | Risk was not temporary or of short duration; could occur in future.time | Imminent harm not established; court affirmed setting aside verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Evon v. Andrews, 211 Conn. 501 (Conn. 1989) (imminent-harm exception not satisfied when harm could occur at an unspecified future time)
- Burns v. Board of Education, 228 Conn. 640 (Conn. 1984) (temporary icy condition limited harm duration; imminent-harm require short duration)
- Purzycki v. Fairfield, 244 Conn. 101 (Conn. 1998) (identifiable victim, imminent-harm three-prong test; duty of care question)
- Doe v. Petersen, 279 Conn. 607 (Conn. 2006) (immunity as question of law; discretionary acts context)
- Salaman v. Waterbury, 246 Conn. 298 (Conn. 1998) (directed-verdict issue; notice to court and party)
- Evon v. Andrews, 211 Conn. 501 (Conn. 1989) (reiterates imminence standard and harms in future time)
- Haynes v. Middletown, 306 Conn. 471 (Conn. 2012) (supreme court remand and briefing on pleading issue)