Smart v. Corbitt
126 Conn. App. 788
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Administratrix of Alfred Smart's estate sues Cappucci, Lavache, and the City over a fatal house fire in 2004.
- Plaintiff alleged Lavache's delay, wrong address to dispatch, and failure to locate occupants; Cappucci and City allegedly negligent and failed to enforce § 29-305.
- Court granted Lavache a directed verdict based on governmental immunity for discretionary acts; Cappucci and City received directed verdicts on other grounds and the trial proceeded to a jury verdict for Cappucci and City.
- Plaintiff sought to preclude expert testimony for late disclosures; court precluded experts before trial, citing scheduling order and potential prejudice.
- Jury found Cappucci and City not negligent; Lavache was immune; Plaintiff moved to set aside verdict, arguing witnesses and notices showed liability.
- Court affirmed judgment, rejecting most preservation issues and upholding immunity and evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preclusion of late-disclosed experts | Smart argues exclusion was too harsh | Defendants claim late disclosure caused prejudice and trial delay | No abuse of discretion; sanction proportionate |
| Lavache’s governmental immunity | Lavache's acts were ministerial; immunity should not apply | Acts were discretionary; immunity applies | Directed verdict proper; discretionary immunity applied |
| Voir dire misstatement of proximate cause | Lavache's counsel misstated causation standard | Not a misstatement; standard properly framed | No abuse of discretion; voir dire permissible |
| Evidentiary rulings on Cappucci testimony and prior-file evidence | Testimony and prior-file documents were relevant | Tests limited and not probative; relevance limited | Rulings proper; testimony and prior file deemed irrelevant or marginal |
| Interrogatories to jury on negligence | Interrogatories would aid finding against Cappucci/City | Findings grant immunity under §52-557n(b)(8) despite negligence | No reversible error; immunity bar regardless of interrogatory results |
Key Cases Cited
- Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2001) (discovery sanctions must be clear, violated, and proportionate)
- Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310 (Conn. 2006) (discretionary vs ministerial acts; police immunity)
- Soderlund v. Merrigan, 110 Conn.App. 389 (Conn. App. 2008) (police discretionary immunity)
- Bonington v. Westport, 297 Conn. 297 (Conn. 2010) (difference between general duties and mandated responses)
- Wright v. Brown, 167 Conn. 464 (Conn. 1975) (discretionary vs ministerial determination in emergency)
- Leger v. Kelley, 142 Conn. 585 (Conn. 1955) (ministerial duty v. discretionary predicate)
- Matthiessen v. Vanech, 266 Conn. 822 (Conn. 2003) (recklessness defined as high degree of risk)