Legal Opinion
Doe v. Petersen
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided August 22, 2006No. SC 17442PublishedCited by 69 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*609 Opinion
ZARELLA, J.
Connecticut municipalities are statutorily immune from negligence liability resulting from the discretionary acts of their employees, officers and agents. An exception to this immunity exists — and municipalities are exposed to possible liability — when “the circumstances make it apparent to the public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm . . . .” Evon v. Andrews, 211 Conn. 501, 505, 559 A.2d 1131 (1989). This appeal requires us to consider whether that exception applies to the facts of the present case.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Johnson v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Shore v. Town of StoningtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Evon v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Haddock v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by69 opinions
- Violano v. FernandezSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Grady v. Town of SomersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Bonington v. Town of WestportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Fleming v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Durrant v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF HARTFORDSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.