Manson v. Conklin, 197 Conn.App. 51

On April 1, 2013, Manson (plaintiff) collided with Officer Conklin’s marked police cruiser while riding a dirt bike; Manson suffered serious injuries and required surgery.
Manson sued Conklin and the city of New Haven for negligence and sought indemnification under § 7-465 and liability under § 52-557n; defendants pleaded, inter alia, governmental immunity and comparative negligence.
Before trial defendants moved in limine to exclude impeachment evidence about Conklin’s prior alleged misconduct; Manson opposed and attached three New Haven Police Department internal affairs (IA) reports alleging misconduct and untruthfulness by Conklin.
The trial court granted the motion in limine and excluded the IA reports and the department’s findings/conclusions; the case proceeded to jury trial.
The jury found Manson had not proved Conklin (or the city) was negligent and returned a verdict for the defendants; Manson appealed, arguing (1) improper exclusion of IA findings as impeachment evidence and (2) improper submission of governmental immunity to the jury.
The appellate court affirmed: exclusion of the IA findings was required because those findings were extrinsic third‑party determinations of untruthfulness (inadmissible under Weaver), and any error in submitting immunity to the jury was harmless because the jury found no negligence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Manson)	Defendant's Argument (Conklin/City)	Held
Admissibility of IA reports/findings as impeachment evidence	Manson argued he should be allowed to impeach Conklin by asking about the IA board’s findings that Conklin lied (i.e., enquire whether the department had so found).	Defendants sought to exclude any impeachment evidence about unrelated prior misconduct and the IA determinations as impermissible extrinsic evidence.	The court held the IA reports’ findings/conclusions are extrinsic third‑party determinations that cannot be used to impeach a witness; exclusion affirmed under Weaver.
Whether the ministerial/discretionary (governmental immunity) issue is for the court or the jury	Manson argued the ministerial vs. discretionary determination is a legal question for the court, not a jury question.	Defendants supported submission to the jury (and pleaded immunity as a defense).	The court did not resolve the legal question because any error was harmless: jury found no negligence, so immunity need not have been decided.

Weaver v. McKnight, 313 Conn. 393 (Connecticut Supreme Court 2014) (holds third‑party determinations that a witness acted untruthfully are extrinsic evidence and inadmissible for impeachment)
State v. Bova, 240 Conn. 210 (Connecticut Supreme Court 1997) (precludes impeachment by reference to another tribunal’s credibility determination)
United States v. Davis, 183 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1999) (federal rule prohibiting reference to internal‑investigation findings that a witness lied; counsel may question facts but may not introduce third‑party credibility determinations)
Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310 (Connecticut Supreme Court 2006) (summarizes ministerial vs. discretionary acts for governmental immunity analysis)