Texidor v. Thibedeau, 163 Conn.App. 847

On March 29, 2011, Quintina Texidor called West Hartford Police reporting a group of teenage boys threatening her daughter and home; dispatcher Thibedeau coded the call as a nonemergency juvenile call and told her an officer would "see [her] there shortly."
The call was entered into the dispatch system; supervising dispatcher Hill classified it nonemergency and did not immediately send a patrol unit given other demands and officer availability. Shift change occurred without full handoff; Grant saw the pending call but delayed dispatch.
Quintina called again at 3:55 p.m.; dispatcher Beyus upgraded the call to a disturbance and officers were dispatched at 3:57 p.m. At 4:03 p.m. a shooting was reported; the plaintiff, a nonresident visiting to help move furniture, was shot by one of the teenagers and injured.
Plaintiff sued the individual dispatchers/officers and the town, alleging defendants breached a ministerial duty by promising prompt response and by classification/handling of the dispatch, causing his injuries; defendants asserted governmental immunity under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n.
Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding their actions were discretionary and the identifiable person–imminent harm exception did not apply; plaintiff appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants performed a discretionary act when handling the initial call	Thibedeau’s statement that an officer would arrive "shortly" created a ministerial duty to respond promptly	Dispatch classification, prioritization, and resource allocation are discretionary police functions	Court: actions were discretionary; summary judgment proper
Whether identifiable person–imminent harm exception applies	Plaintiff (an invitee/relative) was an identifiable foreseeable victim of imminent harm at the residence	Plaintiff was not an identifiable victim; exception is narrowly applied and limited to narrow classes	Court: exception did not apply; plaintiff not identifiable victim
Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment (e.g., ministerial directives exist)	Alleged errors in coding/name entry and failure to notify incoming shift created triable issues	No evidence of any charter, policy, ordinance, or directive making the acts ministerial	Court: plaintiff failed to produce evidence of any mandatory directive; no genuine issue of material fact
Whether town liable for indemnification under § 7-465	Town liable if employee negligence proven	Indemnification depends on prior finding of employee negligence; immunity bars such finding	Court: indemnification claim fails because individual negligence was barred by governmental immunity

Cotto v. Board of Education, 294 Conn. 265 (2009) (describing identifiable person–imminent harm exception to governmental immunity)
Haynes v. Middletown, 314 Conn. 303 (2014) (sets three-prong test for identifiable person–imminent harm exception)
Bonington v. Westport, 297 Conn. 297 (2010) (when complaint shows discretionary nature, summary judgment appropriate)
Mills v. Solution, LLC, 138 Conn. App. 40 (2012) (summary judgment standards)
Smart v. Corbitt, 126 Conn. App. 788 (2011) (police functions are typically discretionary; immunity rationale)
Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 (2009) (only recognized identifiable class: schoolchildren during school hours)
Sestito v. Groton, 178 Conn. 520 (1979) (predecessor factual holding limited to its facts regarding officer inaction)
Wisniewski v. Darien, 135 Conn. App. 364 (2012) (distinguishable; ministerial duty supported by mandatory inspection testimony)
Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988) (general rule: failure or inadequacy of police protection usually not actionable)
Thivierge v. Witham, 150 Conn. App. 769 (2014) (narrow application of identifiable-victim element)
Swanson v. Groton, 116 Conn. App. 849 (2009) (officer lacked notice that a specific victim would be harmed; no identifiable victim)
Wu v. Fairfield, 204 Conn. 435 (1987) (municipal indemnification requires prior finding of employee negligence)