Connecticut Supreme Court building in Hartford. Photo: Michael Marciano/ALM

The Connecticut Supreme Court set precedent this week in ruling that a municipality has governmental immunity from liability in a police chase that ended in the death of a teenage passenger.

The sole issue at stake was whether a town and its police officers are afforded governmental immunity from liability for the decision to engage in a high-speed pursuit that, in this case, lasted just two minutes.

In writing for the majority in the 6-1 Wednesday ruling, Justice Maria Araujo Kahn said that the identifiable victim-imminent harm exception does not apply. That exception refers to whether, in this case, a police officer can see the person he or she is pursuing in the vehicle.

The family argued that the officer could see 15-year-old passenger Brandon Giordano in the pursued vehicle and, therefore—per the exception—should not have chased it.

Siding with Kahn were Chief Justice Richard Robinson and Justices Richard Palmer, Andrew McDonald, Gregory D'Auira and Raheem Mullins. Justice Steven Ecker dissented.

"If we were to agree with the plaintiff, the identifiable victim-imminent harm exception would apply to every police pursuit, and the exception would swallow the rule," the court's majority said.

The case involved the Seymour Police Department and officer Anthony Renaldi, who was involved in the police chase that ended in the death of Giordano.

The Ansonia-Milford Superior Court had granted summary judgment to the defense to dismiss the lawsuit based on governmental immunity and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision.

"This ruling sets precedent," said defense counsel Thomas Gerarde. "The lower courts were not uniformed in their assessment of whether a police officer would be entitled to discretionary act immunity when initiating a police pursuit."

Gerarde of Howd & Ludorf in Hartford, who represented the police department and the officer, continued: "The lower courts were all over the place and the Supreme Court in this state has now put to rest the issue when it deals with police initiating a pursuit."

Giordano's family had maintained that there were exceptions to the governmental immunity rule, namely as it applied to the identifiable victim-imminent harm exception. In addition, the family appealed the lower court's ruling which said the officer had a discretionary rather than ministerial duty to drive with "due regard for the safety of all persons and property." The family sued for $15 million in its 2014 lawsuit.

Giordano was a passenger in the back seat of a Mustang that friend Eric Ramirez was driving. Renaldi stopped the vehicle because it had activated a set of lights that were affixed to the undercarriage, commonly referred to as "underglow lights," which are illegal in Connecticut.

Ramirez sped away and Renaldi followed at a high rate of speed with his emergency lights and siren activated, Kahn wrote. Renaldi lost sight of the Mustang in less than two minutes, but the car hit an embankment and flipped onto its roof, killing Giordano.

In a scathing 69-page dissent, Ecker wrote, "For the first time in Connecticut's history, and in direct contravention of numerous statutes reflecting our Legislature's opposite policy choice, the majority extends immunity to municipal employees whose negligent operation of a motor vehicle on a public road has caused bodily injury or death."

Gerarde said the ruling "was a long time coming. I'm not surprised by the ruling because the courts have come to realize discretionary act immunity is proper for the functioning of Connecticut municipalities." Assisting Gerarde was colleague Kristan Maccini.

Representing Giordano's family were Steven Errante and Matthew Popilowski of Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante in New Haven.

"I'm not shocked because that is the direction the supreme and appellate courts have been going in," Errante said Thursday. "It probably spells the death knell for municipal liability cases unless you are a child within schools hours, because they are compelled to be in school and are given certain protections." Giordano was of school age, but was in the car after school hours.

Errante continued: "I think you'll find plaintiff lawyers will now not be taking these cases no matter how serious they are, even if they have a death, because it's impossible to recover damages."

Related stories:

Middletown Attorneys Go the Extra Mile—Literally—for Quadriplegic Client

New London Attorney Secures $1.1 Million Settlement for Client After Car Crash