Several years ago, the Superior Court of Connecticut in the Judicial District of Middletown handed down its decision in a lawsuit filed by a former student (plaintiff) against the Town of Clinton as well as the board of education. In this case, the plaintiff “brought a direct claim against the defendants, alleging failure to supervise and negligent supervision” in violation of state law, leading to his sexual abuse by a teacher while he was in fifth, sixth, and seventh grades.
A municipality’s liability for negligent acts or omissions depends on whether they “require the exercise of judgment or discretion as an official function of the authority expressly or impliedly granted by law.” In other words, acts that must be performed by the dictates of State law, thus prohibiting discretion, may result in liability if negligently performed; if discretion is permitted, liability will not attach unless one of three exceptions applies. Historically, Connecticut courts have held that “the duty of the defendant [school district] to supervise students is a discretionary, governmental duty.” In addition, employer conduct with respect to failure to screen, hire, train, supervise, control, and discipline constitutes “discretionary acts as a matter of law.”
In this case, the plaintiff contended that under Connecticut law, the defendants “had no discretion not to conduct a continuous teacher evaluation.” Though the defendants agreed with the statutory mandate, it asserted that “the manner in which such an evaluation is conducted is discretionary.” The duty to act claimed by the plaintiff surrounded the use of the phrase “might have crossed the line,” stated by the teacher to a colleague in regards to her relationship with the plaintiff. However, the Court found that “[t]here was absolutely no other evidence presented… to suggest any other way in which the defendants would be in any way on notice of any inappropriate conduct between [the teacher] and the plaintiff.” After further concluding that no exception to governmental immunity for discretionary acts applied, the Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.
Should you have any questions regarding school liability or any other education law matter, the attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable school law practitioners and assist clients in Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, and Westport. If you have any questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya. He may be reached by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.
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.
 Connecticut General Statutes § 52-557n.
 Id. at (a)(2)(B).
 Jane Doe v. Board of Education of the City of New Haven, 76 Conn. App. 296, 300 (2003).
 Hughes v. City of Hartford, 96 F. Supp. 2d 114, 119 (D.Conn. 2000).
 Connecticut General Statutes § 10-151(b).
 Lingos v. Town of Clinton et al., 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2746 at 7.
 Id. at 8.