Ventura v. Town of E. Haven, 154 A.3d 1020

On Nov. 4, 2006 Officer Jeffrey Strand investigated a reported domestic incident at a McDonald’s involving Vladimir Trnka in a white box truck; Strand had the truck remain parked and drove Trnka home after he and his passenger could not produce licenses and the DMV database was unavailable.
Fifty-six minutes later Trnka drove the truck to New Haven and fatally injured the plaintiff (then 18) in a hit-and-run; Trnka was later arrested and charged with several motor vehicle offenses, including misuse of plates and lack of registration.
Plaintiff sued Strand and the Town of East Haven, alleging Strand negligently violated a ministerial duty under the East Haven Police Department Tow Board Rules & Regulations (the tow rules) by failing to have the truck towed/impounded.
At trial the jury found Strand breached a ministerial duty and awarded large damages; the trial court denied the town’s motions for directed verdict and to set aside the verdict, but reduced the award by remittitur.
On appeal the town argued (1) the tow rules do not impose a clear ministerial duty on police officers and thus governmental immunity applies, and (2) insufficient causation and evidentiary errors (the latter two the appellate court did not reach after resolving issue (1)).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the tow rules imposed a clear ministerial duty on police to tow vehicles	Tow rules (¶7) mandate towing for "all motor vehicle violations," so Strand had no discretion and must have towed Trnka’s truck	Tow rules are directed at tow companies; ¶6 preserves police discretion; no clear rule or statute removes officer discretion, so immunity applies	Held for defendant: tow rules do not create a clear ministerial duty; town entitled to governmental immunity
Whether the question of ministerial vs. discretionary duty was for the jury	Jury correctly decided whether officer had ministerial duty	Court should have decided as a matter of law because resolution depends on interpreting written policy	Held for defendant: interpretation of tow rules is a legal question for the court, not the jury
Whether plaintiff proved causation (actual/proximate) between Strand’s conduct and plaintiff’s injuries	Strand’s failure to tow allowed Trnka to later operate and cause injury	Plaintiff’s causation proof was insufficient (trial court erred)	Not reached on appeal (court disposed of case on immunity)
Whether certain evidentiary rulings (intoxication/agitation testimony, expert testimony on police procedures) were prejudicial	Testimony was admissible and supported jury finding	Admission of such evidence was prejudicial and erroneous	Not reached on appeal (court disposed of case on immunity)

Coley v. Hartford, 312 Conn. 150 (recognizing broad governmental immunity for police functions)
Bonington v. Westport, 297 Conn. 297 (ministerial/discretionary distinction analysis)
Mills v. Solution, LLC, 138 Conn. App. 40 (municipal liability principles under §52-557n)
Grignano v. Milford, 106 Conn. App. 648 (definition of ministerial duty)
Wisniewski v. Darien, 135 Conn. App. 364 (written directive evidence of ministerial duty)
Honulik v. Greenwich, 293 Conn. 698 (statutory construction applies to town policies)
State v. Anonymous, 237 Conn. 501 (avoidance of bizarre or unworkable statutory interpretations)
Ugrin v. Cheshire, 307 Conn. 364 (read municipal regulations as whole)
Segreto v. Bristol, 71 Conn. App. 844 (strict construction of statutes abrogating governmental immunity)
Shore v. Stonington, 187 Conn. 147 (limits on liability for failure to enforce motor vehicle laws)
Doe v. Peterson, 279 Conn. 607 (importance of preserving officer discretion)
Kelly v. New Haven, 275 Conn. 580 (court decides legal questions of municipal ordinance interpretation)
Carmel Hollow Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Bethlehem, 269 Conn. 120 (use of public policy only when statute ambiguous)
American Promotional Events, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 285 Conn. 192 (avoid interpreting statute to render language superfluous)