Adesokan v. Bloomfield
Citations
- 347 Conn. 416
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 52-557n (a) (2) (B)) and the common law of this state, respectively, municipalities and their employees enjoy qualified immunity from liability, for their negligent acts or omissions in the performance of duties that require the exercise of judgment or discre- tion, ''[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 14-283 (d)), the privileges afforded to the operator of an emergency vehicle by § 14-283 (b), which include the right to disregard certain traffic laws, signals, and signs under certain conditions, ''shall not relieve the operator of [the] emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons and property.'' The plaintiff, individually and on behalf of her two minor children, sought to recover damages from the defendants, the town of Bloomfield, its police department, and one of its police officers, J, in connection with injuries the plaintiff and her children sustained when the vehicle in which they were travelling was struck by J's police cruiser. At the time of the collision, J was responding to a report of a possible abduction This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Ecker and Alexander. Although Justice McDonald was not present at oral argument, he has read the briefs and appendices, and listened to a recording of the oral argument prior to participating in this decision. 347 Conn. 416 AUGUST, 2023 417 Adesokan v. Bloomfield and travelling in the southbound lane of traffic several vehicles behind the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff arrived at an intersection and made a lefthand turn, but J, while traveling at a speed exceeding seventy miles per hour, moved into the northbound lane, attempted to pass, and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff raised claims of negligence, negligent supervision, and respondeat superior, and the defendants
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- standard jury instructions notwithstanding, prosecutor's misstatement of evidence in closing regarding central issue in close case not harmless error
- “It is error for counsel to make statements in closing argument unsupported by evidence, to misstate admitted evidence, or to misquote a witness’ testimony.”
- evidence of past drug convictions “invites the jury to infer that [a defendant] has a propensity for drug offenses.”
- expert witness may respond to hypothetical questions that mirror facts already in evidence
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.