Tremper v. State
110 A.3d 467
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Two consolidated §52-556 negligence actions arise from a 2008 Interstate 95 crash involving a state service truck driven by a DOT employee; Tremper and Rodriguez sue the state, asserting the driver’s negligent traffic control activities proximately caused injuries and death; the state asserts sovereign immunity limits its liability under §52-556; jury allocations split fault between Clifford/B.C. Trucking and the state; trial produced verdicts for Tremper ($2.725M total) and Rodriguez (about $4.012M total); court instructed on sovereign immunity with potentially misleading guidance; the state’s motions to set aside verdicts were denied; appellate court reverses and remands for clearer instructions consistent with §52-556 and sovereign immunity precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly instructed on §52-556 scope | Rodriguez/Tremper contend instructions allowed liability for ‘operation’ even when vehicle used as warning device/barrier. | State argues immunity barred claims related to vehicle used as warning device/barrier; instruction too broad. | No; instructions failed to properly delineate operation vs. warning/barrier use, requiring reversal. |
| Whether denial of motions to set aside the verdicts was proper | Evidence supported causation and non-immunity liability under proper instructions. | Insufficient evidence to prove proximate cause or non-immunity liability given proper framework. | Remand necessary? Court upheld denial due to standard of review but based on flawed instructions, thus reversed for proceedings consistent with immunity framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera v. Fox, 20 Conn. App. 619 (1990) (limitation of §52-556 when vehicle not parked incident to travel and used as warning device)
- Allison v. Manetta (Allison II), 284 Conn. 389 (2007) (Supreme Court on proper guidance about when truck is operating and immunity applies; remanded for correct instructions)
- Allison v. Manetta (Allison I), 84 Conn. App. 535 (2004) (Appellate decision holding truck operated as a means of movement and maintenance, contributing to immunity analysis)
- Envirotest Systems Corp. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 293 Conn. 382 (2009) (extratextual sources inappropriate to interpret waiver of immunity; narrow construction principles)
- Rivera v. Fox, 20 Conn. App. 619 (1990) (see above)
- Stotler v. Dept. of Transportation, 313 Conn. 158 (2014) (strict construction of sovereign immunity waivers; few exceptions)
- Morneau v. State, 150 Conn. App. 237 (2014) (exceptions to sovereign immunity narrowly construed)
- Shay v. Rossi, 253 Conn. 134 (2000) (sovereign immunity doctrine contextual discussion)
- Canning v. Lensink, 221 Conn. 346 (1992) (jury trial implications for waivers of immunity)
- Edgerton v. Clinton, 311 Conn. 217 (2014) (immunity from suit implicated in jurisdictional analysis)
- Pamela B. v. Ment, 244 Conn. 296 (1998) (sovereign immunity implications in Connecticut)