Munn v. Hotchkiss School
165 A.3d 1167
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Cara Munn, a Hotchkiss School student, contracted tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) after a brief field trip to Mount Panshan, China; she was the first known U.S. traveler to contract TBE in China.
- The trip followed a paved path and students were to return by cable car; some students (including Munn) were allowed to walk down after promising to stay on the path.
- TBE is extremely rare globally and in China; CDC data estimated risk for unvaccinated travelers at ~1 case per 10,000 person-months.
- At trial, plaintiff argued Hotchkiss failed to warn/protect students (e.g., clothing, DEET, tick checks); defendants argued the risk was negligibly remote and precautions burdensome and impractical.
- Lower courts (D. Conn. and 2d Cir.) upheld a jury verdict for plaintiff; Espinosa, J. concurs with the certified answers but separately argues the risk was legally unforeseeable as a matter of law and urges reconsideration or legislative immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foreseeability of harm (duty) — Was contracting TBE at Mt. Pan reasonably foreseeable? | Munn: School knew or should have known of TBE risk in northeastern China and thus should have warned/protected students. | Hotchkiss: Risk was extraordinarily remote (CDC quantified it as minuscule), no specific local risk known; precautions disproportionate or impractical. | Court of Appeals certified question; concurrence (Espinosa, J.) argues risk was so improbable it should be unforeseeable as a matter of law, but majority declined to do so. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of actual knowledge | Munn: Hotchkiss staff (director) had seen CDC warnings about TBE in northeast China. | Hotchkiss: The CDC advisory mentioning TBE was posted after the trip; no evidence staff saw a warning before travel. | Espinosa highlights archival evidence that pre-trip CDC pages did not mention TBE, undermining actual-knowledge proof. |
| Applicability of Learned Hand B < PL (burden vs. probability) | Munn: Even low probability plus severe harm and low burden of precautions (clothing, DEET, tick checks) required precautions. | Hotchkiss: Probability was essentially zero; cumulative burden of guarding against myriad remote risks is unreasonable and harmful to educational programs. | Espinosa questions applying Learned Hand to foreseeability in Connecticut and finds the probability too tiny to be overcome by asserted low burden. |
| Public policy / impact on educational programs | Munn: Duty to protect students from serious travel risks. | Hotchkiss: Imposing liability for remote risks will chill study-abroad programs; legislature should provide immunity. | Espinosa urges legislative action or reversal to avoid broad chilling effect; notes other courts have found similar remote risks unforeseeable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sic v. Nunan, 307 Conn. 399 (foreseeability requires that an ordinary person in the defendant’s position would anticipate harm of the general nature as likely)
- LePage v. Horne, 262 Conn. 116 (foreseeability focuses on probabilities of danger; duty tied to what a defendant knew or should have known)
- Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563 (rejects literal foreseeability; assesses scope of risks created)
- Goldberger v. David Roberts Corp., 139 Conn. 629 (counselor could not be held to foresee a camper’s highly unlikely heedless conduct)
- Ruiz v. Victory Properties, LLC, 315 Conn. 320 (degree of care for children varies by age and maturity; distinguishes relevance here)
- Pisel v. Stamford Hospital, 180 Conn. 314 (harm of the general nature may be foreseeable even if manner is unusual)
- United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169 (Learned Hand formula balancing burden, probability, and gravity)