St. Pierre v. Town of Plainfield
165 A.3d 148
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff David L. St. Pierre slipped and fell on wet steps after an aqua therapy session held in Plainfield’s municipal pool; he sued the town for negligence under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n.
- Eastern Connecticut Rehabilitation Center (Eastern), a private provider, had reserved the pool 2–3 times weekly since 1994 and paid Plainfield a nominal usage fee ($50–$60/hour); no formal lease existed.
- During reserved sessions the town provided a lifeguard and remained responsible for pool cleaning and general maintenance.
- The town’s swim operation showed a net operating loss for the fiscal year (expenses exceeded revenues), and the town argued the pool operation was a governmental function.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the town, concluding discretionary act immunity applied and neither the proprietary-function exception nor the identifiable-person/imminent-harm exception displaced immunity.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing (1) the town derived a special corporate profit/pecuniary benefit by renting the pool to a for‑profit entity, and (2) he was an identifiable person subject to imminent harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proprietary-function exception (§ 52-557n(a)(1)(B)) abrogates immunity | St. Pierre: renting the pool to Eastern for a fee made the pool a proprietary operation and deprived the town of immunity | Plainfield: pool operation promotes public health, fees are nominal, overall operation runs at a loss, no formal lease—so activity remains governmental | Held for Plainfield: operation is governmental; no special corporate profit or pecuniary benefit; exception does not apply |
| Whether profitability should be measured by revenues from Eastern’s reserved hours only | St. Pierre: measure profitability by comparing fees Eastern paid for its reserved hours to costs for those hours | Plainfield: argument not raised below and no authority for prorating profitability by user-hour; record insufficient | Rejected: new theory not considered; court declines to adopt prorated-hours profitability metric |
| Whether the identifiable-person, imminent-harm exception applies | St. Pierre: as a participant present during reserved sessions he was identifiable to the lifeguard and exposed to imminent harm from wet steps | Plainfield: plaintiff was voluntarily present (not compelled) and not an identifiable victim; no evidence he was singled out to town officials | Held for Plainfield: plaintiff was not an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class; exception does not apply |
| Whether the wet steps constituted an imminent harm for the identifiable-person exception | St. Pierre: accumulated water on steps posed imminent harm | Plainfield: no basis to treat standing/accumulated water as an imminent, specific hazard to an identifiable victim | Court did not reach this prong after finding plaintiff not identifiable; exception fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Considine v. Waterbury, 279 Conn. 830 (2006) (analyzes when municipal activity is proprietary vs. governmental under § 52-557n)
- Hannon v. Waterbury, 106 Conn. 13 (1927) (holding operation of municipal pools is a governmental function promoting public health and safety)
- Carta v. Norwalk, 108 Conn. 697 (1929) (examples of fees/leases that may indicate proprietary function)
- Blonski v. Metropolitan Dist. Comm’n, 309 Conn. 282 (2013) (liability when municipal conduct is inextricably linked to proprietary operation)
- Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 (2009) (applicability of identifiable person/imminent harm exception to municipal liability)
- Cotto v. Board of Educ., 294 Conn. 265 (2009) (limits on identifying a victim where risk is general to many users)
- Sestito v. Groton, 178 Conn. 520 (1979) (limited factual recognition of identifiable person where police observed imminent danger)