Girolametti v. Larrabee

Syllabus

The defendant city of Danbury and the defendant E, the city's deputy chief building inspector, appealed from the trial court's judgments for the plain- tiffs in their actions alleging, inter alia, a statutory (§ 52-557n (b) (7) and (8)) cause of action for reckless disregard for health or safety in the issuance of permits and the making of inspections, in connection with the build-out of the plaintiffs' party goods store. The city claimed, inter alia, that the court erred in charging the jury that the plaintiffs could recover against the city in a direct action pursuant to § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8). Held: The trial court properly instructed the jury that the plaintiffs could recover damages in a direct action against the city pursuant to § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8), as subdivisions (7) and (8) of that statute specifically abrogate govern- mental immunity in circumstances in which a municipality's conduct or that of its employee in the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of any permit or in the making of inspections constitutes a reckless disregard for health or safety. This court rejected the city's alternative claim that causes of action brought pursuant to § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8) should derive only from a city policy to issue permits or conduct inspections with reckless disregard for health or safety, or a formal citywide practice to recklessly issue permits or conduct inspections that was so pervasive that it was the functional equivalent of city policy, as the language of § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8) is clear and unambiguous and did not include such a requirement. The trial court did not err in its charge to the jury with respect to the proper legal standard for recklessness under § 52-557n (b) (7) and (8), as, to the extent This case originally was argued before a panel of this court consist- ing of Judges Seeley, Wilson and Prescott. Thereafter, Judge Keller was substituted for Judge Prescott, and she has read the briefs and appendices, and has listened to