210 Conn.App. 435
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Salamone and Cartelli) sued Wesleyan University alleging they were sexually assaulted in the early 1980s by Andrew Barer, then a student and resident advisor/head resident, after Barer arranged to meet them in his dormitory under the guise of athletic instruction.
- Plaintiffs alleged Barer lured multiple teenage boys to his dorm room and that Wesleyan negligently supervised him, causing their injuries.
- Wesleyan moved for summary judgment, arguing (inter alia) the assaults were not reasonably foreseeable and Barer lacked an employment/agency relationship at the time.
- Wesleyan submitted undisputed evidence that Barer had no criminal history, complaints, or disciplinary records while a student; plaintiffs submitted three affidavits from other alleged victims that lacked specifics about campus observation or reporting to university staff.
- The trial court denied plaintiffs’ request for a continuance for further discovery, granted Wesleyan’s motion for summary judgment on foreseeability grounds, and the plaintiffs appealed.
- The Appellate Court affirmed: plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue that Wesleyan knew or should have known of Barer’s propensity to assault minors or that its conduct created a foreseeable risk requiring precautions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foreseeability of assaults (negligent supervision) | Affidavits from three prior victims show a pattern, creating a triable issue that assaults were foreseeable. | Barer had no record, complaints, or disciplinary history; no evidence Wesleyan knew or should have known of risk. | Court: No genuine issue; summary judgment affirmed — harm not reasonably foreseeable. |
| Sufficiency of plaintiffs’ evidence (affidavits) | Affidavits of prior victims suffice to show prior incidents and notice. | Affidavits lack specifics (dates, campus witnesses, reports) and do not show university notice. | Court: Affidavits insufficient to infer Wesleyan knew or should have known. |
| Denial of continuance for further discovery | Plaintiffs needed depositions of university personnel to oppose summary judgment. | Scheduling orders and long discovery period; plaintiffs had opportunity but delayed. | Court: Plaintiffs did not adequately brief abuse of discretion; denial not overturned. |
| Employment/agency status of Barer | Barer acted as resident advisor/head resident, creating supervisory duty. | Wesleyan argued Barer was not an employee/agent at the relevant time. | Court: Did not reach or decide agency issue because case disposed on foreseeability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Boy Scouts of America Corp., 323 Conn. 303 (Supreme Court of Connecticut) (foreseeability of sexual misconduct where defendant’s activities created unsupervised opportunities for minors)
- Doe v. Saint Francis Hospital & Medical Center, 309 Conn. 146 (Supreme Court of Connecticut) (question of foreseeability for institution that failed to supervise and created opportunities for abuse)
- Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Solid Surface, LLC, 207 Conn. App. 525 (App. Ct. of Conn.) (summary judgment standards and burden on movant/nonmovant)
- Bevilacqua v. Bevilacqua, 201 Conn. App. 261 (App. Ct. of Conn.) (standard of appellate review for denial of continuance)