160 Conn.App. 798
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- This action arises from a September 3, 2006 motor-vehicle collision on I-95 caused by a diesel spill and response by Greenwich volunteer firefighters.
- Firefighters positioned a fire truck with flashing lights across multiple lanes and placed warning cones at the scene.
- William Kumah was seriously injured when his vehicle collided with the lit fire truck.
- Plaintiffs alleged negligence and nuisance; Keziah Kumah alleged loss of consortium.
- The jury found negligence but barred by qualified immunity; nuisance claim found no public nuisance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the interrogatories’ answers harmonizable with a general verdict? | Kumah asserts inconsistency between negligence and nuisance findings. | Greenwich contends the answers can be reconciled under distinct standards. | Yes; the interrogatories can be harmonized. |
| Should the verdict be set aside due to alleged interrogatories inconsistency? | Verdict inconsistent; court should set aside. | No clear abuse; deference to jury findings. | The trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict affirmed. |
| Whether the negligence finding and the no-unreasonable-use finding are reconcilable | Negligence may be found despite reasonable land use. | Different standards apply to negligence vs nuisance; can coexist. | They can be reconciled; not inherently inconsistent. |
| What is the proper standard of reasonableness for negligence vs nuisance claims? | Reasonableness in negligence supports duty breach concepts. | Nuisance requires balancing interference with public utility. | Both standards are distinct and appropriately applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazurek v. Great American Ins. Co., 284 Conn. 16 (Conn. 2007) (duty and breach measured by reasonable care; foreseeability matters)
- Picco v. Voluntown, 295 Conn. 141 (Conn. 2010) (nuisance elements; municipality requires positive act creating condition)
- Shukis v. Board of Education, 122 Conn. App. 555 (Conn. App. 2010) (unreasonable interference in public nuisance context depends on public impact or statute)
- Prifty v. Waterbury, 133 Conn. 654 (Conn. 1947) (consideration of surrounding circumstances in interference with public use)