DocketNumber: No. 32 18 79
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 2579
Judges: NADEAU, J.
Filed Date: 3/12/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On April 12, 1997, the plaintiffs, Mustafa Shaham, in his capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Bassan Shaham and, individually, and Fahmiea Shaham, individually, filed a second amended complaint seeking damages arising out of their son's death.
The complaint alleges that on September 23, 1993, the "teenage decedent," as the complaint describes him, intentionally ingested a large quantity of medications in an attempt to commit suicide; upon discovery of his condition, family members called the Newtown Police Department requesting assistance in transporting him to a hospital for emergency medical treatment. The defendants, Wheeler and Bahamonde, both Newtown police officers (hereinafter "officers") responded to the call for assistance. Shaham family members informed the officers of that which the decedent had ingested and requested that he be transported to a hospital. It is further alleged that instead of taking Bassan to a hospital, the officers took him into custody and brought him to the Newtown Police Headquarters. While he was in custody at the police station, police personnel contacted the Newtown Volunteer Ambulance Association (hereinafter "EMTs"), to respond to a drug overdose complaint.1 Shortly thereafter, the EMTs diagnosed Bassan as having sustained a clinical drug overdose. CT Page 2580
After making this diagnosis, none of the representatives of the police or the ambulance service transported the decedent to the hospital. Subsequently, representatives from the Newtown police department dropped the decedent off at a local parking lot. Approximately five hours later, he began to suffer from the effects of the overdose and was transported by ambulance to the hospital, where he soon died of acute colchicine toxicity.
The plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that Bassan Shaham's death was proximately caused by the negligence and gross negligence of the officers in counts one and three, respectively, and by the negligence of the Town of Newtown in count seven, and the gross negligence of the EMTs in counts five and six. In count eight, the plaintiffs allege that the negligent and grossly negligent conduct of the parties caused the plaintiffs severe emotional distress. The final two counts, two and four, allege statutory claims against the Town of Newtown pursuant to General Statutes § 7465.
On September 19, 1997, the officers and the Town filed this motion for summary judgment as to counts one, two, three, four, seven and eight of the second amended complaint. In a memorandum, the defendants make the following arguments: (1) As to counts one, two, and seven, sounding in negligence, the defendants and the town of Newtown are immune from suit based on the doctrine of governmental immunity; (2) as to counts three and four, sounding in gross negligence, summary judgment should be granted because gross negligence is not actionable under Connecticut law; and (3) as to count eight, sounding in negligent infliction of emotional distress, summary judgment is sought because no facts can be shown to support a finding of emotional distress. The defendants have filed with their memorandum of law their own affidavits.
In opposition, the plaintiffs have filed a memorandum of law with the affidavit of decedent's administrator.
Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party . . . The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue [of] material facts CT Page 2581 which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law. . . . and the party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Doty v.Mucci,
"A determination of negligence is necessarily one of fact."Maffucci v. Royal Park Ltd. Partnership,
In the defendants' memorandum, they argue that governmental immunity precludes them from being held liable for Bassan's death. "A municipality's . . . liability for its tortious acts is limited by the common law principle of governmental immunity. . . . Governmental immunity, however, is not a blanket protection for all official acts." (Citation omitted.) Heigl v.Board of Education,
In the present case, the officers, in responding to an alleged suicide attempt, were performing a private duty to an individual, as opposed to a duty to the public at large. See,Brown v. Dooling, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia/Milford at Milford, Docket No. 032598 (August 14, 1995, Skolnick, J.). "[A]lthough the public duty doctrine provides the starting point of the analysis, distinctions between discretionary acts and ministerial acts are often controlling without regard to whether the duty is ascertained to be public or private." Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, supra,
The plaintiffs argue, inter alia, that the officers had a ministerial duty to take the decedent to the hospital, because they knew or should have known that the decedent's life was in danger. "The operation of a police department is a discretionary
governmental function, and acts or omissions related to police functions ordinarily do not give rise to liability on the part of the municipality or a cause of action in tort against it." (Emphasis added.) Gonzalez v. City of Bridgeport, Superior Court, CT Page 2583 judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 253464 (June 4, 1993, Fuller, J.) citing Gordon v. Bridgeport HousingAuthority, supra,
Although a municipal employee is generally entitled to immunity from liability for the performance of discretionary acts, there exist three recognized exceptions, the first of which is germane here: "[W]here 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. . . ."Mulligan v. Rioux, supra,
The defendants' motion for summary judgment as to counts one, two and seven is denied.
In support of their summary judgment motion as to count three, the defendants argue that police officers engaged in emergency aid cannot be held liable for gross negligence pursuant to General Statutes §
COUNT EIGHT, SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
The defendants' argue that the plaintiffs have failed to assert a claim for bystander emotional distress. In this count, however, plaintiffs' attempt to assert a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, not bystander emotional distress. In order to press a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the defendant negligently breached a duty owed to the plaintiff.Montinieri v. Southern New England Telephone Co.,
In the present case, it must be determined whether the parents of a deceased teenager may assert a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress against police officers, whose alleged negligence caused the teenager's death. To assert such a claim, the plaintiffs first must establish that the officers owed them a duty.
In Doe v. Cuomo,
Here, plaintiffs assert that they telephoned the Newtown Police department and requested assistance in transporting the decedent to a hospital for emergency medical care. Thereafter, it is alleged, the officers arrived, took the decedent into custody and brought him to police headquarters. The plaintiffs' pleadings adequately allege that the plaintiffs entrusted their son's care to the defendants, who ostensibly undertook such endeavor. Therefore, a duty existed between the defendants and the plaintiff parents and the plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a breach of that duty.
Whether the defendants knew or should have known that their conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing distress to the plaintiff parents, and whether the defendants should have realized that distress, if caused, might result in illness or bodily harm to the plaintiffs are factual issues to be determined by the jury, which have not been taken out of dispute by the papers of the parties. Thus, the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to count eight is denied.
Nadeau, J.