180 Conn. App. 515
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- On April 12, 2012, a kindergarten student fell from a wooden playscape ladder at D.C. Moore Elementary and injured his left arm.
- The ladder had five rungs; plaintiffs allege the fifth metal rung’s bolt was missing or loose and the wood showed wear where the bolt struck.
- Plaintiffs sued the Town of East Haven (and parents individually) for negligence under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n, alleging the playscape and surrounding surfacing were decrepit and school employees were aware of conditions.
- Town moved for summary judgment asserting governmental immunity and that any inspection/repair duties were discretionary (and that plaintiffs had not alleged ministerial acts).
- Trial court found the Town owed a duty (via agency), but inspection/repair were discretionary and the identifiable person–imminent harm exception did not apply because the bolt condition was not shown to be apparent or to create a high probability of imminent harm.
- Appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the Town, concluding plaintiffs failed to show the dangerous condition was apparent and the likelihood of harm so high as to create a clear and immediate duty to act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to inspect/maintain school playscape | Town (via agency) owed duty to maintain/playground safety | Inspection/maintenance is board of education duty; Town lacks duty | Court assumed Town owed duty (agency) but resolved case on immunity, not duty dispute |
| Applicability of governmental immunity (discretionary act) | Inspection/repair failures were negligent (ministerial) | Inspection/repair are discretionary functions entitled to immunity under §52-557n | Court: inspection/repair were discretionary; immunity applies |
| Identifiable person–imminent harm exception | Schoolchildren are identifiable; missing/loose bolt made harm imminent | Plaintiffs failed to show condition was apparent or likelihood of imminent harm | Court: exception inapplicable—bolt condition not shown to be apparent and probability of imminent harm not proven |
| Sufficiency of evidence to defeat summary judgment | Photographs and affidavit (mother) show loose/missing bolt and worn wood; hazard was obvious | Plaintiffs offered no evidence Town was aware or on notice of bolt; no proof danger was imminent | Court: plaintiffs’ evidence insufficient to create genuine dispute on apparentness/imminence; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. New Haven, 328 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2018) (explains governmental immunity statute and imminent-harm exception standard)
- Edgerton v. Clinton, 311 Conn. 217 (Conn. 2014) (articulates the identifiable person–imminent harm exception elements)
- Haynes v. Middletown, 314 Conn. 303 (Conn. 2014) (addresses apparentness and imminence in school injury context)
- Williams v. Housing Authority, 327 Conn. 338 (Conn. 2017) (sets forth the four-pronged test for imminent-harm exception analysis)
- DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 123 Conn. App. 583 (Conn. App. 2010) (summary judgment standard and opposing-party evidentiary requirements)