Silberstein v. 54 Hillcrest Park Associates, LLC
41 A.3d 1147
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Tom Silberstein and Elizabeth Newman own property at 7 Ricky Beth Lane in Hillcrest Park and pay taxes to the Hillcrest Park Tax District and Association, of which they are members.
- In 2002, three families petitioned to subdivide 54 Hillcrest Park Road; subdivision approved November 6, 2002, and two new houses (50 and 54 Hillcrest Park Road) were built on the subdivided parcel; plaintiffs’ property is at the base of a 52.8 acre watershed.
- Following construction, plaintiffs experienced severe and repeated flooding on their property; plaintiffs notified the defendants of the flooding.
- In 2007, tax district members approved funds for a watershed study, but plaintiffs allege the defendants refused to hire an engineer for the study.
- The Hillcrest Park Tax District (established 1985) and Hillcrest Park Association, Inc. are quasi-municipal entities formed to maintain roads, drains, and sewers; their bylaws authorize maintenance of drains, sewers, and roads, and the district assumed maintenance previously performed by the association.
- The plaintiffs filed suit in 2007 asserting counts including negligence; the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, appellate review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defendants owed a duty to maintain storm drains and sewers. | Silberstein asserts a duty existed. | Hillcrest argues no duty beyond statutory requirements. | Yes, they had a duty to maintain." |
| Whether the maintenance was ministerial or discretionary. | Maintenance was ministerial. | Maintenance was discretionary. | Maintenance was discretionary; immunity applies." |
| Whether the identifiable person, imminent harm exception applies. | Exception applies due to potential imminent flooding to identifiable plaintiff. | Exception not satisfied by plaintiffs’ claims. | Does not apply; no imminent harm exception. |
| Whether governmental immunity bars the negligence claim. | Immunity should not bar the claim. | Immunity bars the claim for discretionary acts. | Yes, immunity bars the negligence claim." |
Key Cases Cited
- Spitzer v. Waterbury, 113 Conn. 84 (Conn. 1931) (ministerial nature of storm sewer maintenance under statutory duty)
- Doe v. Petersen, 279 Conn. 607 (2006) (immunity issue; duty of care; discretionary acts)
- Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 (2009) (identifiable person, imminent harm exception framework)
- Evon v. Andrews, 211 Conn. 501 (1989) (discretionary act immunity and standards)
- Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310 (2006) (ministerial vs discretionary acts; policy limits)
- Coe v. Board of Education, 301 Conn. 112 (2011) (distinguishing ministerial vs discretionary acts)
- Doe v. Petersen, 279 Conn. 607 (2006) ([duplicate included above for emphasis])