182 Conn. App. 278
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Feb 22, 2009 Christian Perez fell on ice on UConn campus and later filed a claim with the Claims Commissioner; the claim was denied.
- The General Assembly vacated that denial and authorized Perez to sue the state under Gen. Stat. § 4-159(b)(1)(B)(ii).
- Perez sued the state (University dismissal upheld as agent of the state), sought a jury trial, and claimed a constitutional jury right under Conn. Const. art. I, § 19 and statutory rights under §§ 4-159(c) and 4-160(c).
- The state moved to strike the case from the jury list relying on § 4-160(f), which provides that "such actions shall be tried to the court without a jury," and the trial court granted the motion.
- The case was tried to the court and judgment entered for the state; Perez appealed, arguing (1) a state-constitutional right to a jury trial and (2) statutory rights under §§ 4-159(c)/4-160(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether art. I, § 19 of Conn. Const. guarantees a jury trial for Perez's negligence claim against the state | Perez: negligence claim is legal in nature and analogous to claims tried by jury in 1818, so § 19 preserves a jury right | State: sovereign immunity precluded suits against the state at common law, so no 1818 jury right exists against the sovereign | Held: No constitutional jury right; plaintiff cannot show a cause against a defendant suable at common law in 1818, so § 19 does not apply |
| Whether § 4-159(c) grants a jury trial by treating the state as a "private person" | Perez: § 4-159(c)’s comparison to a private person means claimants gain the same procedural rights (including jury trial) | State: § 4-159(c) only defines the legislative waiver standard; it does not expressly grant jury trials | Held: Denied — § 4-159(c) does not affirmatively confer a jury right; waiver statutes must explicitly provide jury trials |
| Whether § 4-160(c) creates a jury right despite § 4-160(f) | Perez: § 4-160(c)’s language that rights/liability are "coextensive" with private persons implies jury trial | State: § 4-160(f) expressly mandates bench trials for actions authorized under § 4-159, overriding any inference from (c) | Held: Denied — § 4-160(f) expressly requires trials to the court; (c) cannot be read to contradict (f) |
| Whether § 4-160(f) is unconstitutional as conflicting with art. I, § 19 | Perez: enforcing (f) would violate the inviolate jury right | State: No conflict because § 19 does not secure a jury right against the sovereign here | Held: Rejected — even if raised, § 4-160(f) does not violate § 19 because no constitutional jury right exists for this suit against the state |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Angliker, 211 Conn. 370 (1989) (art. I, § 19 preserves only jury rights existing at time of 1818 adoption; defendant must have been suable at common law)
- Canning v. Lensink, 221 Conn. 346 (1992) (no constitutional jury right where sovereign immunity barred common-law suits against the state in 1818)
- Vejseli v. Pasha, 282 Conn. 561 (2007) (distinguishing municipal governmental immunity from state sovereign immunity)
- Board of Education v. State Board of Education, 278 Conn. 326 (2006) (statutory provisions should be read harmoniously within the broader statutory scheme)