Martinez v. City of New Haven, 176 A.3d 531

Anthony Martinez, an 11‑year‑old student, was injured in his school auditorium when another student dropped safety scissors during horseplay; Martinez was cut while picking them up.
A teacher (Stewart) was assigned to supervise the auditorium but testified he did not see the running or the scissors; another teacher tended to Martinez after the cut and reported the incident.
Martinez sued the city, the Board of Education, and the superintendent for negligent supervision under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‑557n, claiming the imminent‑harm to identifiable‑persons exception to governmental immunity.
Defendants sought leave to amend their answer to plead governmental immunity as a special defense; the trial court did not rule explicitly but tried the case on the immunity issue.
Trial court found for Martinez, concluding the imminent‑harm exception applied, and awarded damages; the defendants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Martinez proved the imminent‑harm to identifiable‑persons exception to governmental immunity	Martinez: students at school are an identifiable class; running with scissors was the dangerous condition and harm was apparent to the supervising teacher	Defendants: no evidence harm was imminent or apparent to supervisor; trial court did not identify the dangerous condition or imminence as required under Haynes	Reversed as to counts 1–2: plaintiff failed to prove harm was apparent/imminent to create a clear and unequivocal duty to act immediately
Whether defendants properly pleaded governmental immunity as a special defense	Martinez: defendants did not timely plead immunity in operative answer, so case should be ordinary negligence	Defendants: they sought leave to amend before trial; trial court implicitly granted the amendment	Court held trial court implicitly allowed amendment; defendants properly raised governmental immunity, and that ruling stands

Haynes v. Middletown, 314 Conn. 303 (Conn. 2014) (clarifies imminence test: dangerous condition must be so likely to cause harm that a clear and unequivocal duty to act immediately arises)
Strycharz v. Cady, 323 Conn. 548 (Conn. 2016) (insufficient evidence that officials were or would have been aware that harm was imminent defeats the exception)
Edgerton v. Clinton, 311 Conn. 217 (Conn. 2014) (describes governmental immunity framework and identifiable‑person/imminent‑harm exception elements)
Burns v. Board of Education, 228 Conn. 640 (Conn. 1994) (recognizes schoolchildren as an identifiable class for duty of care purposes)
Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 (Conn. 2009) (discusses identifiable class of schoolchildren and limitations on exceptions to immunity)