PPA v. Town of Stratford (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On February 17, 2007 the minor plaintiff, age six, went sledding with her father and her brother on Brook Park in Stratford in the morning.   They returned home at noon, the minor plaintiff again went sledding with her father in the afternoon.   The top of the hill was located in a third base side on a baseball field and the father would generally put the daughter's plastic sled toward the outfield and she would go sliding.   The minor plaintiff then attempted to go sliding on her own and headed toward the infield of the baseball field where bleachers were located.   She had been advised to fall off the sled if she could not control it or to use her arms and legs to slow the plastic sled down.   However she struck the bleachers and suffered a laceration on her right cheek.   The lacerations were repaired at the hospital and the plaintiff was left with a scar on her right cheek.

The plaintiff has instituted a suit against the Town of Stratford indicating that there were no signs warning sledders of the dangers of the bleachers, there were no barriers or other safety precautions taken to prevent sledders from striking the bleachers.

The slope of the hill is described as being gentle and there are no obstacles if one directs the sledding toward the outfield rather than toward the infield of the baseball field.   The defendant Town asserts that it is immune from liability due to the doctrine of governmental immunity.

In the present case, there is no doubt that an injury occurred or that some additional measure could have been utilized.   However, there is no evidence of the existence of any code, charter provision, ordinance, statute, regulative or policy applicable to the town or which was mandatory in the town to follow.   Generally, a municipal employee is liable for the misperformance of ministerial acts, but has a qualified immunity in the performance of governmental acts ․ Governmental acts are performed wholly for the direct benefit of the public, and are supervisory or discretionary in nature ․ The hallmark of a discretionary act is that it requires the exercise of judgment ․ In contrast, ministerial refers to a duty which is to be performed in a prescribed manner without the exercise of judgment or discretion.   Municipal officials are immunized from liability for negligence arising out of their discretionary acts in part because of the danger that a more expansive exposure to liability would cramp the exercise of official discretion beyond the limits desirable in our society ․ Discretionary act immunity reflects a value judgment that—despite injury to a member of the public—the broader interest in having government officers and employees free to exercise judgment and discretion in their official functions, unhambered by fear of second-guessing and retaliatory lawsuits, outweighs the benefits to be had from imposing liability for that injury ․ In contrast, municipal officers are not immune from liability for negligence arising out of their ministerial acts, defined as acts to be performed in a prescribed manner without the exercise of judgment or discretion ․ This is because society has no analogous interest in permitting municipal officers to exercise judgment in the performance of ministerial acts. (citations & internal quotation marks omitted) Violano v. Fernandez, 380 Conn. 310, 318–19 (2006).

Judgment may enter in favor of the defendant on the grounds that the defendant has a qualified governmental immunity.¹

RUSH, J.T.R.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Gen. Stat § 52–557n2B ․ a political subdivision of the state shall not be liable for damage caused by “negligent acts or omissions which require the exercise of judgment or discretion ․”.  FN1. Gen. Stat § 52–557n2B ․ a political subdivision of the state shall not be liable for damage caused by “negligent acts or omissions which require the exercise of judgment or discretion ․”

Rush, William B., J.T.R.