Mills v. Solution, LLC
138 Conn. App. 40
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Mills, executrix of Clarence Israel Mills, appeals summary judgments favoring the City of Bridgeport, Handy, Armeno, 5 Star Amusement, Coleman couple.
- Carnival at Seaside Park was operated by Solution and 5 Star; permits issued with 5 Star as permittee and Solution as applicant; security duties coordinated with police.
- June 24, 2005, Mills was fatally shot at the carnival; the complaint asserts negligence claims against 5 Star and municipal officials for inadequate security.
- Municipal defendants moved for summary judgment on discretionary acts immunity under § 52-557n and argued § 7-284 did not create a ministerial duty; 5 Star moved for summary judgment arguing lack of control over premises.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to municipal defendants and to 5 Star; Mills appeals contending § 7-284 creates ministerial duty and that 5 Star’s control/premises status creates a duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 7-284 create a ministerial duty to furnish police protection? | Mills: § 7-284 imposes ministerial duty once protection is deemed necessary. | Handy/Armeno: § 7-284 vests discretion in police to determine necessity and extent. | No ministerial duty; § 7-284 permits discretion. |
| Are the municipal defendants immune under discretionary act immunity because acts were discretionary and not for pecuniary benefit? | Mills: discretionary acts immunity does not apply since § 7-284 imposes ministerial duty. | Municipal defendants: acts were discretionary with no special pecuniary benefit; immunity applies. | Yes, § 52-557n (a)(2)(B) immunity applies. |
| Did 5 Star have possession or control of the carnival premises creating a duty to the decedent? | Mills: 5 Star’s involvement in permits/implied control shows possession of premises. | 5 Star: not owner/possessor; no control over premises; no duty. | No genuine issue of material fact; 5 Star did not possess/control premises; no duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Considine v. Waterbury, 279 Conn. 830 (2006) (proprietary vs governmental considerations for municipal liability)
- Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310 (2006) (three exceptions to discretionary act immunity; imminent harm)
- Morascini v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 236 Conn. 781 (1996) (police services funding and § 7-284 rationale)
- Soderlund v. Merrigan, 110 Conn. App. 389 (2008) (mandatory vs discretionary duty analysis)
- Plainfield v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 213 Conn. 269 (1989) (tax/treatment of police services under § 7-284)