School and Town Claim Immunity After Wife’s Frozen Fall

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any education matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

In the case of Caruso v. Town of Westport, a husband and wife sued the Town of Westport and its school board for injuries resulting from negligence, as well as a loss of consortium. In law, negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another. In order to succeed in this claim, the husband and wife must prove that (1) the town and school owed a duty of care to the husband and wife, (2) the town and school breached that duty and, (3) the breach of duty was a direct cause of the husband and wife’s (4) real and compensable injury. A loss of consortium is a claim for damages suffered by the spouse of a person who has been injured as a result of a party’s negligent or intentional actions. The town and school moved to strike these claims, in doing so, they challenged the legal sufficiency of the husband and wife’s complaint.

The husband and wife claim that on March 15, 2005 at around 7:00 p.m., the wife was attending a school concert at Staples High School in Westport, Connecticut. Upon the wife’s arrival at the high school, she was directed by a police officer to park in an adjacent parking lot at a neighboring middle school. The wife claims that the parking lot was poorly illuminated, and did not have its streetlamps on. After exiting the vehicle, the wife immediately slipped and fell to the ground on a sheet of ice which caused her to sustain physical injuries.

The court struck the claims against the town and school. Generally, a town is protected by governmental or municipal immunity, which provides a local government with immunity from tort-based claims. There are exceptions to this immunity, which are specifically set forth according to law or statute. No such exception was argued here. “The right of the plaintiffs to recover is limited by the allegations of their complaints and the court must not countenance a variance which seeks to turn a suit against a governmental official in his official capacity into a suit against the individual personally” explained the court. “To do otherwise, would allow [the husband and wife] to subject an unsuspecting government official to personal liability.”

This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any education matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.


Source: Caruso v. Town of Westport, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS (Conn. Super. Ct. October, 10, 2006)

***All posts for the MayaLaw.com blog are created as a public service for the community. This case overview is intended for informational purposes only, and is not a solicitation of any client.***