Gonzalez v. New Britain
Citations
- 216 Conn. App. 479
Syllabus
The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant city of New Britain and its animal control officer, D, for injuries she allegedly sus- tained as a result of the defendants' negligence. D had responded to reported dog attacks in January and June, 2016, involving two pit bulls that occurred at certain real property in New Britain. The plaintiff sus- tained injuries during a 2018 attack by the same pit bulls and, at the time, was a tenant at the property. The plaintiff alleged that D was negligent for, inter alia, failing to remove the pit bulls from the property, and alleged claims for indemnification and statutory negligence against the city. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that, based on the 2016 attacks, D knew or should have known that, as a tenant on the property, the plaintiff would have been attacked by the pit bulls. The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's amended complaint on the basis of governmental immunity, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. On appeal, the plaintiff did not dispute that governmental immunity applied to her claims against the defendants in light of the discretionary nature of D's alleged conduct but, instead, alleged that the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to govern- mental immunity applied. Held that the trial court correctly concluded that the plaintiff's amended complaint was legally insufficient because she did not plead facts demonstrating that she was an identifiable victim for purposes of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity: that complaint did not contain allegations dem- onstrating that she was legally compelled to be at the property when the pit bulls attacked her or that her tenancy was required by law, rather, the only logical reading of the amended complaint was that her residence at the property was purely voluntary; moreover, the only identifiable class of foreseeable victims that our case law has recognized in con
Judges: Bright; Prescott; 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.