Doe v. Fasold

Citations

• 234 Conn. App. 182

Syllabus

The plaintiffs jointly appealed from the trial court's rendering of summary judgment, in each of seven cases, for the defendant town with respect to the plaintiffs' claims of negligence and negligent supervision. The plaintiffs claimed that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in each case despite the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a work order request for maintenance made by a town employee created a ministerial duty to perform that maintenance in a prescribed way, thereby abrogating the town's governmental immunity protection and exposing the town to liability pursuant to statute (§ 52-557n) for its failure to complete the requested maintenance. Held: The plaintiffs failed to establish that a genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to the nature of the town's duty because it was legally and logically correct for the trial court to conclude that the acts and omissions alleged in each complaint with respect to the requested maintenance were discretionary in nature, rather than ministerial, and, accordingly, the court properly determined that the town was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its governmental immunity defense in each action. Argued March 11—officially released August 5, 2025