181 Conn. App. 239
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- On April 25, 2012 a fifth‑grade student (Tatayana Osborn) was assaulted during lunchtime recess at a Waterbury elementary school, suffering facial lacerations and scarring and ongoing behavioral effects.
- Plaintiffs (mother on her own behalf and on behalf of the child) sued the City of Waterbury and the Waterbury Board of Education alleging negligent supervision of students on the playground; several staff and board members were named but some claims were withdrawn.
- At trial the court found one student intern and three or four staff supervising and concluded that this was insufficient to control “perhaps as many as 400 students,” and awarded $67,090.47 (including medical expenses and an amount to encourage further therapy).
- Defendants appealed, asserting (inter alia) governmental immunity, factual disputes about the number of students present (defense evidence suggested ≤50), lack of expert proof on supervisory staffing standards, and insufficient evidence to support future‑therapy damages.
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding that the plaintiffs were required to present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care for the number of supervisors on an elementary school playground and failed to do so; the court remanded with direction to render judgment for the defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether governmental immunity (discretionary act immunity) bars the claim | Plaintiffs contended immunity did not apply to the alleged negligent supervision | Defendants asserted statutory and qualified immunities for discretionary acts | Not reached on merits—court resolved appeal on expert‑testimony ground |
| Whether court correctly found as fact that up to 400 students were on the playground | Plaintiffs relied on trial court findings that students likely ate together and went out in large numbers | Defendants pointed to testimony (e.g., Avalos) that there were no more than ~50 students | Appellate Court did not decide whether that factual finding was clearly erroneous because it reversed on legal ground |
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove the standard of care for supervision ratios | Plaintiffs argued expert testimony was not necessary and trial court could decide sufficiency of supervision | Defendants argued standard is professional/regulated and beyond lay knowledge, so expert proof was required | Held: Expert testimony was required; in absence of such evidence plaintiffs failed to prove breach of standard of care |
| Whether award for future therapy/occupational training was supported | Plaintiffs argued award could fund future treatment if family later determined it necessary | Defendants argued no evidence showed future therapy was required | Court noted lack of evidence for ongoing need; did not base reversal on this issue after resolving expert‑testimony issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Precision Mechanical Services, Inc., 122 Conn. App. 448 (discusses duty and scope of duty in negligence)
- LePage v. Horne, 262 Conn. 116 (plenary review on duty questions)
- Keeney v. Mystic Valley Hunt Club, Inc., 93 Conn. App. 368 (definition of professional negligence)
- Brye v. State, 147 Conn. App. 173 (expert testimony required when standard is beyond lay knowledge)
- Buckley v. Lovallo, 2 Conn. App. 579 (institutional rules alone do not establish standard of care without expert proof)
- Van Steensburg v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospitals, 194 Conn. 500 (rules/policies do not themselves establish standard of care in medical context)
- Baxter v. Cardiology Associates of New Haven, P.C., 46 Conn. App. 377 (procedural policies relevant only if supported by expert testimony)