The Connecticut Supreme Court has upheld two lower court rulings that found the town of Old Saybrook and its fire company were not liable for the actions of a volunteer firefighter whose car collided with a motorcyclist in front of the firehouse.

The plaintiffs attorneys in Fiano v. Old Saybrook Fire Co. No. 1 had argued the municipality and the firehouse should be held responsible for the actions of volunteer junior firefighter James Smith because, they argued, Smith was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the October 2013 accident.

Motorcyclist Michael Fiano suffered a head wound, rib fractures, an injury to his left leg that required multiple surgeries and skin grafting procedures following the accident. The case against the municipality and the firehouse is now closed, but Fiano has a pending lawsuit in Superior Court against Smith in his individual capacity.

The defense maintained the municipality and firehouse should not be held liable for Smith's actions, because even though he was in front of the firehouse, he had left the facility and was on his way home and not on his way to answer any emergency calls.

The state's high court ruled 6-0 Friday for summary judgment for the defendants, upholding rulings from the Connecticut Appellate Court and a Middletown Superior Court judge.

Fiano's attorney has argued there was, in fact, a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Smith was furthering the firehouse's interest while at the site.

The plaintiff's attorney, the state's high court said, argued, “There was evidence that would support a finding that the fire company benefited from his presence in close proximity to the firehouse when he was ready, willing and able to respond immediately to any emergency calls that might come in.”

However, Senior Associate Justice Christine Vertefeuille, writing for the court, said: “We are aware of no authority, however, for the proposition that the test for determining whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment or, instead, was merely on call, is how long it would have taken the employee to respond to the employer's call to return to duty if such a call had occurred.”

Vertefeuille continued: “We conclude, in the present case, that a reasonable jury could conclude only that, by the time Smith entered his vehicle, at the very latest, he had embarked on the pursuit of purely personal affairs, and nothing that occurred after that point and before the accident brought him back under the control of the fire company.”

Cowdery & Murphy's James Healy, one of Fiano's two attorneys, told the Connecticut Law Tribune Wednesday, “The legal issue is whether Smith was still in the scope of employment. We thought he was. I am disappointed, but we obviously respect the court's decision.”

Representing the municipality and firehouse was Michael O'Connor, a partner with North Haven-based Williams, Walsh & O'Connor.

“If the Supreme Court went against the municipality that would have meant that anytime a policeman or firefighter was involved in an accident, even if they were on the way to get milk and were not on duty, that the towns would get sued,” O'Connor said Wednesday. “It would have created a whole new cause of action against municipalities financially.”

Assisting Healy was Douglas Mahoney, a partner with Bridgeport-based Tremont Sheldon Robinson & Mahoney.