Thivierge v. Witham
150 Conn.App. 769
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Petras, Middletown's municipal animal control officer, issued a restraint order to Witham under § 22-358(c) after two biting incidents by Witham's dog Thor.
- The restraint order required the dog to be leashed, penned when on Witham's property, controlled by an adult when off-property, not tied or tethered, licensed, and neutered within thirty days.
- On June 15, 2010, Florence Thivierge was attacked and injured by Thor while petting the dog on Witham's property.
- Thivierge sued Petras and the city for negligence, seeking damages, indemnification, and vicarious liability for hiring and supervising Petras.
- The trial court granted summary judgment based on governmental immunity, and Thivierge appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the acts were discretionary, and the identifiable person-imminent harm exception did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Petras and city are immune under discretionary act immunity | Thivierge argues immunity does not apply because enforcement of the restraint order was ministerial. | Petras and city contend enforcement involved judgment and discretion, not ministerial duty. | Yes, immunity applies; acts were discretionary. |
| Whether identifiable person-imminent harm exception applies | Thivierge asserts she was an identifiable victim of imminent harm due to failure to enforce. | Petras and city argue the exception does not apply to this scenario. | No, exception does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988) (foundation for municipal liability and immunity analysis under discretionary acts)
- Conway v. Wilton, 238 Conn. 653 (1996) (codification and limits of municipal liability under § 52-557n)
- Edgerton v. Clinton, 311 Conn. 217 (2014) (reaffirms discretionary act immunity and ministerial vs discretionary distinction)
- Silberstein v. 54 Hillcrest Park Associates, LLC, 135 Conn. App. 262 (2012) (treatment of ministerial vs discretionary acts for immunity)
- Soderlund v. Merrigan, 110 Conn. App. 389 (2008) (illustrates ministerial vs discretionary determination in enforcement context)
- Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 (2009) (identifiable person-imminent harm exception framework)
- Cotto v. Board of Education, 294 Conn. 265 (2009) (limits on identifiable person-imminent harm applicability)
- Sestito v. Groton, 178 Conn. 520 (1979) (earlier scope of identifiable victim concept under doctrine)
- Grignano v. Milford, 106 Conn. App. 648 (2008) (discretionary immunity discussion in municipal liability context)
- Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310 (2006) (ministerial duties and municipal liability principles)