Purzycki v. Town of Fairfield
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the CourtSpear, J.
The plaintiffs1 appeal from the judgment notwithstanding the verdict rendered by the trial court after it granted the defendants’2 motion to set aside the verdict. The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly determined that they failed to establish the imminent harm aspect of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to the defendants’ qualified governmental immunity. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The plaintiff Jason Purzycki was an eight year old second grade student at Roger Sherman School in Fairfield.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Shore v. Town of StoningtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Berry v. LoiseauSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Evon v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Burns v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Sestito v. City of GrotonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Purzycki v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Bonamico v. City of MiddletownConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
- Costanzo v. GrayConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Purzycki v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Elinsky v. Marlene, No. Cv96 0557659 (Oct. 31, 1997)Connecticut Superior Court · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.