Plaintiff in this matter sought damages from the City of Hartford and one of its police officers, in connection with injuries the plaintiff sustained when the plaintiff’s motorcycle was hit from behind by an unmarked police vehicle. Daley v. Kashmanian, 344 Conn. 464 (2022). The vehicle known as a “soft car” lacked flashing or revolving lights and was indiscernible from a civilian vehicle. The officer was instructed to surveil a number of motorcycles and “quads” in the area who were suspected of speeding and causing havoc on the city’s residents with the use of the “soft car”. Plaintiff at trial sought indemnification for his injuries from the City as to the officer’s actions in violating Connecticut traffic laws. The City asserted that plaintiff was not entitled to recovery under the governmental immunity statute.
The trial court returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, but the governmental immunity claim was to be later decided by the judge. The Court ultimately set aside the verdict, as it found in favor of the City in that the officer’s actions fell under the “discretion acts” protected by the governmental immunity statute. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court, and the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Connecticut Supreme Court after hearing both sides held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the defendants in this matter were entitled to governmental immunity in connection with the plaintiff’s negligence claim, as the State’s motor vehicle statutes setting forth the rules of the road imposed numerous “ministerial duties” that the officer violated in the operation of his motor vehicle.
The Court examined extensively the statute’s legislative history, and found that negligence in the operation of motor vehicles was not intended to be shielded by governmental immunity. It further examined more contemporaneous cases that a municipality is liable for its employee’s negligent operation of an emergency vehicle engaged in a high-speed police pursuit and rejecting any claim for blanket immunity in such circumstances.
The Court found that although the decision to use a “soft car” to surveil the plaintiff was discretionary, once that decision was made, the officer had a ministerial duty and was legally bound to comply with the rules of the road, unless he was operating his vehicle as an emergency vehicle within the meaning of the Connecticut Statute, which the officer, at trial, conceded he was not.
The Court then remanded the matter back to the trial court with instruction to reverse the trial court’s decision to set aside the verdict and to reinstate the jury’s verdict rendering judgment for the plaintiff as to indemnification from the City.