Horenian v. Washington
128 Conn. App. 91
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Mark Horenian filed a six-count revised complaint against Officer Marcel D. Washington and the city of Hartford arising from a November 26, 2005 collision and subsequent police investigation.
- Washington investigated at the scene, then interviewed Horenian at Hartford Hospital and informed him he was at fault for an improper U-turn, which Horenian disputed with tire-mark evidence.
- Washington allegedly returned to the hospital in a rage, placed a traffic citation on Horenian’s chest, and suggested arrest for lying about tire marks.
- Afterwards, Washington and a supervisor re-examined the scene; a citation copy was destroyed by a supervisor but another copy was processed by the department.
- Horenian faced a criminal proceeding for the alleged improper U-turn; the state later entered a nolle prosequi on that charge.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all counts; the appellate court later dismissed counts 2–6 as moot and affirmed on count 1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts 2–6 are moot | Horenian argues genuine issues exist on counts 2–6. | Immunity shields counts 2–6; mootness applies since immunity resolves them. | Counts 2–6 are moot; affirmed dismissal on those counts. |
| Whether summary judgment on count 1 was proper | Washington's actions were extreme and outrageous; genuine issues exist. | Conduct was insulting but not extreme or outrageous; no factual dispute on that standard. | Summary judgment proper; Washington's conduct not extreme or outrageous. |
| Standard of review and gatekeeping role in IIED claims | Court should evaluate factual disputes for IIED claim viability. | Court correctly applied gatekeeping to determine potential outrageous conduct. | Court properly performed gatekeeping; no error in granting summary judgment on count 1. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stancuna v. Schaffer, 122 Conn.App. 484 (Conn. App. 2010) (insult or hurt feelings insufficient for IIED)
- Green v. Yankee Gas Corp., 120 Conn.App. 804 (Conn. App. 2010) (mootness can dispose of claims when other grounds exist)
- In re Jorden R., 293 Conn. 539 (Conn. 2009) (four-part test for justiciability in mootness cases)
- Plato Associates, LLC v. Environmental Compliance Services, Inc., 298 Conn. 852 (Conn. 2010) (plenary review of summary judgment; light favorable to nonmovant)