Court Allows Plaintiff to Shift Burden of Proof to 3 Defendants After 1 Starts Fire
The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling in a fire liability case, hinged on the alternative liability doctrine.
September 13, 2019 at 03:58 PM
4 minute read
Citing the alternative liability doctrine as the crux of its decision in a fire liability case, the Connecticut Supreme Court on Friday reversed a Superior Court ruling, which had found the plaintiffs had not determined which of three adults had caused a fire that destroyed a mill and sewer line.
Finding for the town of Somers and its insurer, the high court ruled the municipal government didn't have to isolate the smoker whose cigarette had caused the fire among a group of negligent defendants. It accepted the town's argument that the lower court had failed to apply a doctrine that allows a plaintiff to shift the burden of proof to multiple defendants, even though only one defendant might be liable.
The case is now remanded to the lower court, where plaintiffs had sought monetary damages.
In Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency and Town of Somers v. Jackson, the municipal government and its insurer were plaintiffs, alleging three defendants' carelessness had caused $206,740 in property damage.
According to a May 2014 lawsuit, defendants Christopher Jackson, Wesley Hall and Erin Houle allegedly trespassed onto the mill in June 2012. The trio then drank and smoked about 15 cigarettes on the mill's roof, basement, and its first and second floors, according to court document. But the group failed to extinguish some of the cigarettes, sparking a fire that destroyed the mill and a sewer line, the suit claimed.
The trial went in favor of the defendants.
A Tolland Superior Court judge granted their motion for summary judgment, concluding the town and its insurer were unable to establish which of the three defendants' cigarettes had caused the fire, and therefore couldn't prevail on the element of causation.
The trial court also declined the plaintiffs' request to apply the alternative liability rule, stating that adoption of the rule was a policy decision to be made on behalf of the Connecticut Appellate Court or the legislature, none of which had previously endorsed the rule.
But the high court unanimously disagreed.
It found "no reason why our adoption of the alternative liability rule should be understood as a return to our past system of joint and several liability, pursuant to which any of the defendants could have been liable for the entire judgment at the option of the plaintiff."
"To the contrary, we view the rule as being fully compatible with our modern apportionment scheme," Associate Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The court added, "Because the defendants have identified no persuasive reason why the alternative liability rule that we adopt today should not be applied to them, we reject their claim that the rule should be applied prospectively only."
Attorneys for the defense expressed surprise at the ruling.
"This will put a lot more burden on insurance companies, and I think it's an unfortunate decision," said defense counsel Erin Field, a solo practitioner with offices in Hartford, Enfield and New Haven. "I can't honestly understand how they decided to change the law like this, because I don't know where the precedent is coming from."
Fellow defense attorney Danielle J.B. Edwards called the ruling a "significant development in Connecticut tort law benefiting plaintiffs."
"It will be interesting to see how this new theory of liability, adopted in a property damage case, applies in other contexts, such as medical malpractice, and the precise nature of the burden that future defendants will bear," said Edwards, an appellate litigator with 1818 Law in Norwalk.
Representing the plaintiffs were Heather Adams and Sarah D'Addabbo, both with Hartford-based Conway Stoughton. Neither responded to a request for comment Friday.
In addition to Field and Edwards, also representing the defense were James Sexton, of Sexton & Co. LLC, and Sergio Deganis of Ouellette, Deganis & Gallagher.
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
- 1For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 2As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 3General Warrants and ESI
- 4GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
- 5Authenticating Electronic Signatures
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