Munn Ex Rel. C.M. v. Hotchkiss School
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13515
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Cara Munn, a Hotchkiss School student, contracted tick‑borne encephalitis (TBE) after a school‑organized summer trip to Tianjin, China that included a hike on Mt. Pan, a forested area. No specific warnings about insect‑borne diseases or instructions to use insect repellent were given on the trip.
- Hotchkiss provided pre‑trip materials (itinerary, packing list, CDC link, waiver form); the packing list mentioned bug spray but health materials were incomplete and a CDC link posted pointed to an incorrect regional page. Trip leader left her repellent on the bus.
- Munn suffered severe, permanent neurological and speech impairments from TBE; she recovered some function but has lasting cognitive and expressive deficits. Economic damages were calculated; non‑economic damages were substantial.
- Plaintiffs sued Hotchkiss for negligence (at trial they proceeded on failure to warn and failure to protect). A jury found Hotchkiss liable and awarded about $41.5 million ($10.25M economic; $31.5M non‑economic).
- On appeal, Hotchkiss challenged duty/foreseeability and the excessiveness of damages. The Second Circuit found sufficient evidence of foreseeability but concluded Connecticut public‑policy questions and the remittitur issue were unsettled and therefore certified two questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hotchkiss owed a duty to warn or protect students from serious insect‑borne disease on an organized foreign trip | Hotchkiss should have warned and provided protections (repellent, vaccination advice) because the risk of insect‑borne encephalitis in forested NE China was knowable/foreseeable | Imposing such a duty is contrary to public policy; trip organizers cannot be required to warn against every remote risk and doing so would chill educational activities | Court: Enough evidence of foreseeability to go to jury, but public‑policy scope of a duty under Connecticut law is unsettled — certified the duty question to CT Supreme Court |
| Foreseeability of contracting TBE on Mt. Pan | Munn: travel advisories and the forested nature of Mt. Pan made the risk foreseeable | Hotchkiss: evidence of TBE advisories postdated the trip and the disease risk was too remote | Court: Sufficient evidence for jury; reasonable jurors could find travel advisories and other sources put school on notice |
| Whether the $41.5M (especially $31.5M non‑economic) award is excessive and requires remittitur | Plaintiffs: damages reflect severe, permanent injuries and loss of enjoyment; award supported by trial evidence | Hotchkiss: award is massive, unsupported by record discussion of non‑economic damages, and will chill educational programs | Court: Remittitur raises significant state policy concerns and uncertain standards under Connecticut law — certified remittitur question to CT Supreme Court |
| Procedural defenses (waiver/exclusion of evidence) — preserved for later proceedings | Plaintiffs: waiver ambiguous and against public policy; experts supported foreseeability and standards | Hotchkiss: waiver should bar recovery; challenged admissibility and jury charge | Court: Did not resolve these issues; reserved them pending Connecticut Supreme Court answers |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacques v. DiMarzio, 386 F.3d 192 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- Gronowski v. Spencer, 424 F.3d 285 (2d Cir.) (jury‑verdict reversal standard)
- Maldonado v. Scully, 86 F.3d 32 (2d Cir.) (deference to jury credibility findings)
- Sic v. Nunan, 307 Conn. 399 (Conn. 2012) (duty inquiry requires foreseeability plus public‑policy analysis)
- Ruiz v. Victory Props., LLC, 315 Conn. 320 (Conn. 2015) (broad construction of foreseeability, special solicitude for children)
- Murillo v. Seymour Ambulance Ass'n, 264 Conn. 474 (Conn. 2003) (foreseeability alone does not mandate duty; court must weigh policy)
- Jaworski v. Kiernan, 241 Conn. 399 (Conn. 1997) (limiting duty in recreational sports to avoid chilling beneficial activities)
- Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563 (Conn. 1998) (policy‑based refusal to impose duty where consequences would be disproportionate)
- Monk v. Temple George Assocs., LLC, 273 Conn. 108 (Conn. 2005) (four‑factor public‑policy test for duty: expectations, encouragement of activity, litigation avoidance, other jurisdictions)
- Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1996) (state law governs remittitur/excessiveness in diversity cases)
- Champagne v. Raybestos‑Manhattan, Inc., 212 Conn. 509 (Conn. 1989) (standards for ordering remittitur when verdict shocks sense of justice)
- Birgel v. Heintz, 163 Conn. 23 (Conn. 1972) (test for when jury awards are excessive)
- RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381 (Conn. 1994) (policy considerations limit duty when consequences are too attenuated)
- Caruso v. Siemens Bus. Commc'ns Sys., Inc., 392 F.3d 66 (2d Cir.) (certification of state‑law question appropriate when state law unsettled)