24 F. Supp. 3d 155
D. Conn.2014Background
- Munns sued Hotchkiss for negligent planning and supervision of Hotchkiss’s 2007 China trip, and a jury found Hotchkiss solely liable.
- The trip included Mount Panshan, a forested area; students were not warned about insect-borne disease or how to prevent it.
- Munn contracted tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) after the Mount Panshan hike, became permanently disabled, and cannot speak.
- CDC advisories warned about insect-borne disease risks in China; Mount Panshan fell within a risk category supported by evidence and maps.
- Trial awarded $450,000 past economic, $9.8 million future economic, and $31.5 million non-economic damages; collateral-source offset later reduced total economic damages to $9,965,905.39 and total award to $41,465,905.39 through a joint stipulation.
- Munns filed post-trial motions (Rule 50 and 59); the court denied the motions and entered amended judgment following collateral-source reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty and foreseeability under Connecticut law | Munns: foreseeability supports duty to warn/ protect | Hotchkiss: foreseeability is insufficient to create duty; public policy may bar liability | Duty existed; foreseeability supported; jury properly instructed |
| Causation—infection occurred on Mount Panshan | Munns: infection date linked to Mount Panshan via incubation and evidence | Hotchkiss: no conclusive proof of Mount Panshan infection | Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported causation in fact and proximate causation |
| Parental immunity and waiver defenses | Munns: parental immunity bars reduction of plaintiff’s recovery; waiver not enforceable | Hotchkiss: waiver releases school from sole negligence; parental negligence may reduce liability | Parental immunity bars claims against parents; waiver and comparative-negligence defenses rejected; no reduction of award based on parental conduct |
| Public policy defense to liability | No public-policy exoneration for foreseeable insect-borne disease risk | Public policy bars liability for certain foreseeable, but exceptional, risks | Public policy did not shield Hotchkiss; no exempting rationale under CT law |
| Admissibility and weight of expert testimony (Daubert/Gatekeeping) | Experts should be allowed if qualified and reliable | Some experts lacked data; reliability issues | Fluharty’s testimony struck for lack of data; other experts admitted; gatekeeping appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Considine v. City of Waterbury, 279 Conn. 830, 905 A.2d 70 (Conn. 1998/2006) (duty and foreseeability; scope of duty; appellate standard of review)
- LePage v. Horne, 262 Conn. 116, 809 A.2d 505 (Conn. 2002) (foreseeability; proximate cause analysis)
- Galdieri-Ambrosini v. Nat’l Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 1998) (summary judgment standards; weighing evidence not substituting court for jury)
- Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., 246 Conn. 563, 717 A.2d 215 (Conn. 1998) (foreseeability vs. causal connection; attenuation of harm)
- Jaworski v. Kiernan, 241 Conn. 399, 696 A.2d 332 (Conn. 1997) (foreseeability of risk in sport contexts; public policy exceptions)