Recent News
Firm Wins Directed Verdict |
The firm recently obtained a directed verdict in favor of its municipal client after the jury had rendered a verdict finding the City liable for injuries suffered by a high school student who was engaging in "horseplay" with other students in the boys' locker room of the high school. The plaintiff was injured when one of the students pushed him against a jagged piece of metal protruding from one of the lockers. The plaintiff claimed that the jagged peice of metal constituted a defective condition that had existed for several months. The City claimed that it was immune from liability pursuant to the governmental immunity afforded by Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-557n, which provides that, "a political subdivision of the state shall not be liable for damages to person or property caused by ... (B) negligent acts or omissions which require the exercise of judgment or discretion ...." The plaintiff in turn claimed that although the decision whether to repair the locker was "discretionary," the City was nevertheless liable pursuant to the identifiable/imminent harm exception to municipal liability developed at common law.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the firm moved for a directed verdict on the City's governmental immunity defense claiming that the plaintiff had failed to introduce any evidence to refute the City's position that its duty to inspect and/or repair the locker was purely discetionary. The trial court reserved judgment on the City's motion and allowed the case to go to the jury.
The jury determined that the jagged piece of metal did constitute a defective condition and rejected the testimony proffered by the City's employees tht they had no prior knowledge of the defective condition. The City then renewed its motion for a directed verdict in the form of a motion to set aside the verdict and to enter judgment in favor of the City as a matter of law.
In its memorandum of decision, the Trial Court (Jones, J.) found that although the locker did constitute a defective condition for which the City was responsible, and that the student constituted an identifiable victim, it also determined that the defect did not create an "imminent harm" because the condition had existed for seven months prior to the injury and could hve happened at any time. Even though the jury had found in favor of the plaintiff and rendered damages in his favor, the Court set the verdict aside and entered judgment in favor of the City as a matter of law.
