Connecticut Supreme Court Sides With Town, Fire Department on Motorcyclist's Personal Injury Claim
The Connecticut Supreme Court has sided with Old Saybrook and its town firehouse against a motorcyclist who was injured when a volunteer firefighter, who had just left the firehouse in his vehicle, struck him. The court upheld lower court rulings and said the municipality and firehouse were not liable for the crash.
June 26, 2019 at 02:39 PM
4 minute read
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.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDC Judge Rules Russia Not Immune in Ukrainian Arbitration Award Dispute
2 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
Trending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 2A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 3Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 4Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250