Doe v. Flanigan
Citations
- 201 Conn. App. 411
Syllabus
The plaintiff sought to recover damages from, inter alia, the defendant city of Waterbury for injuries that he suffered when F, a former police officer employed by the city, allegedly pushed the plaintiff to the ground and handcuffed him, and a third party, C, assaulted the plaintiff by placing a sex toy against his buttocks. The plaintiff's operative complaint alleged, inter alia, that the city was liable pursuant to statute (§ 52-557n) for the damages he sustained as a result of F's negligence. The court rendered partial summary judgment in favor of the city, concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether F had engaged in wilful, rather than negligent misconduct, and that the identifiable victim subject to imminent harm exception to governmental immunity did not apply to the plaintiff's allegation that F failed to protect him from C's sexual assault. Subsequently, the plaintiff withdrew his remaining claims and appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court erred in granting the city's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's claim that F negligently pushed him to the ground and handcuffed him: the plaintiff proffered sufficient evidence to demon- strate the existence of genuine issues of material fact with respect to whether F's conduct was wilful or negligent, as a reasonable jury could have concluded that the plaintiff was willingly handcuffed by F and was not, as the court concluded, an unwilling participant, there was an issue as to whether F was demonstrating the professional use of handcuffs on the plaintiff, and there was evidence in the record that F had shown a pattern of poor judgment while acting in his duties as a police officer, and the fact that F's use of handcuffs was in violation of the city's policy did not make his conduct per se wilful; moreover, the city's claim that this court should affirm the trial court's judgment on the alternative ground that F was not acting within the scope of his employment whe
Judges: Elgo; Bright; Moll
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.