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.