Mirjavadi v. Vakilzadeh
128 Conn. App. 61
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Leyla Mirjavadi sues for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from the abduction of her daughter Saba Fabriz during a supervised visit on October 5, 1996.
- Defendant Maria Varone supervised the visit; a relative Vakilzadeh participated; prior to the visit, a plan for supervision and potential substitute personnel was discussed but not finalized.
- Abduction occurred after 2:00–4:00 p.m. at Stamford Town Center; the child and Fabriz reportedly left with a limousine to JFK and then to Turkey; Mirjavadi has had no contact with Saba since.
- The trial court found for Varone, relying on several factual determinations later found clearly erroneous, including timing of the abduction and the role of a substitute supervisor.
- The appellate court later concluded that erroneous factual findings undermine the court’s fact-finding process and warrant a new trial.
- No other party remains a critical issue on appeal, as the focus is on whether Varone owed a duty and whether her conduct was negligent given the foreseeability of abduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abduction timing could be after 4 p.m. justifying negligence. | Mirjavadi asserts abduction occurred earlier; 4 p.m. timing is unsupported. | Varone contends timing could have been after 4 p.m. | Not supported; timing could not be after 4 p.m.; error harmful. |
| Whether the court erred in finding a substitute supervisor agreement. | Parties did not reach a binding substitute supervision agreement. | There was consideration of a substitute; no written agreement. | Error; no binding substitute agreement; prejudicial impact on foreseeability analysis. |
| Whether the court minimized the defendant’s initial purpose in supervision. | Supervision aimed at preventing abduction; court underweighted this purpose. | Purpose was mixed; not solely prevention. | Legal conclusions about foreseeability were flawed; duty analysis incomplete. |
Key Cases Cited
- Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (2010) (clear error standard for factual findings)
- Lambert v. Donahue, 78 Conn.App. 493 (2003) (harms’ foreseeability and sufficiency of findings)
- LPP Mortgage, Ltd. v. Lynch, 122 Conn.App. 686 (2010) (exclusive province of weighing conflicting evidence)
- Stewart v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 234 Conn. 597 (1995) (proximate cause includes foreseeability and substantial factor)
- Artie’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 208 (2008) (foreseeability as test for proximate cause)
- LePage v. Horne, 262 Conn. 116 (2002) (foreseeability and risk analysis in duty)
- Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563 (1998) (duty exists from foreseeability; public policy may bar duty)
- Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co., 292 Conn. 150 (2009) (superseding cause vs. unforeseeable intervening acts)
- Monk v. Temple George Associates, LLC, 273 Conn. 108 (2005) (duty analysis; foreseeability and public policy)
- Sturm v. Harb Development, LLC, 298 Conn. 124 (2010) (duty; foreseeability and public policy)
- Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co., 292 Conn. 150 (2009) (superseding cause)