Ventura v. Town of E. Haven, 199 A.3d 1

Background

On Nov. 4, 2006 Officer Jeffrey R. Strand responded to a 911 call about a possible domestic disturbance involving Vladimir Trnka in a vehicle at a McDonald’s parking lot; Strand determined there was no probable cause to arrest.
Trnka and his passenger could not produce licenses; dispatch could not confirm license status because the DMV system was down. Strand instructed Trnka to leave the truck parked and to take his keys, and drove Trnka home.
About 56 minutes later Trnka returned, drove the truck and struck the plaintiff, causing severe injuries; subsequent investigation revealed the truck was unregistered, uninsured, and bore misused plates.
The plaintiff sued the Town of East Haven alleging Strand negligently violated East Haven Police Department Tow Board Rules & Regulations (the “tow rules”) by failing to have the truck towed — claiming paragraph 7 made towing mandatory for motor vehicle violations — and invoked municipal liability under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n(a).
The jury found Strand violated a ministerial duty and awarded large damages; the Appellate Court reversed, concluding the tow rules govern tow companies (not officers) and towing is discretionary; the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification and affirmed the Appellate Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether existence of a ministerial duty under written tow rules is a question for jury or court	Ventura: jury should decide whether Strand’s acts were ministerial or discretionary	Town: interpretation of written rule and whether it creates a ministerial duty is a question of law for the court	Court: question of law; whether a statute/regulation creates a ministerial duty is for the court (plenary review)
Whether East Haven tow rules imposed a ministerial duty on officers to tow vehicles for all motor vehicle violations	Ventura: paragraph 7 requiring "all motor vehicle violations are to be towed" imposed a nondiscretionary duty	Town: tow rules are directed to towing companies and expressly reserve officer discretion (paragraph 6); do not bind officers	Court: tow rules regulate tow companies, not officers; paragraph 6 shows officer discretion; no ministerial duty existed
Whether testimony (Emerman and others) established an unwritten ministerial policy requiring towing of unregistered vehicles	Ventura: Emerman’s testimony about routine towing and practice supports finding of ministerial duty	Town: Emerman testified decision to tow is discretionary; routine practice does not create a nondiscretionary rule	Court: routine practice or training does not convert discretionary conduct into ministerial duty; testimony insufficient to establish a mandatory rule
Whether applying plaintiff’s construction would yield absurd or unworkable consequences	Ventura: rules should be read to protect the public by mandating towing of unregistered vehicles	Town: plaintiff’s reading would force officers to tow for trivial traffic infractions and render paragraph 6 meaningless	Court: plaintiff’s construction would produce absurd results and would nullify paragraph 6; avoid that reading

Key Cases Cited

Lombard v. Edward J. Peters, Jr., P.C., 252 Conn. 623 (Conn. 2000) (background on past language about fact-vs.-law determinations; Court disavowed language suggesting ministerial/discretionary is normally factual)
Strycharz v. Cady, 323 Conn. 548 (Conn. 2016) (explains that existence of duty is a question of law but factual disputes material to immunity may go to the trier)
Coley v. Hartford, 312 Conn. 150 (Conn. 2014) (describes discretionary-act immunity and ministerial exception)
Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (Conn. 1988) (affirmed practice of deciding governmental-immunity issues as matters of law)
Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310 (Conn. 2006) (requires clear statutory or regulatory language to impose a ministerial duty)
Shore v. Stonington, 187 Conn. 147 (Conn. 1982) (recognizes broad discretion in law enforcement and that officers owe no ministerial duty to enforce every motor-vehicle law)
Bonington v. Westport, 297 Conn. 297 (Conn. 2010) (clarifies ministerial/discretionary analysis and requirement of clear directive)
Martel v. Metropolitan District Commission, 275 Conn. 38 (Conn. 2005) (discusses discretion in supervisory/operational decisions)
Doe v. Petersen, 279 Conn. 607 (Conn. 2006) (reaffirms that governmental immunity is question of existence of duty, a legal determination)
Kiewlen v. Meriden, 317 Conn. 139 (Conn. 2015) (applies statutory construction principles to municipal rules and regulations)