A Connecticut state court has granted summary judgment to a municipality, which was sued when a soccer player injured himself by stepping in a hole on the field, ruling that it is shielded by governmental immunity from a lawsuit filed by the plaintiff’s parent.
On August 23, 2005, Mark Sanford, the minor son of Roseanne Sanford, was participating in a soccer practice on a field at Central Middle School in Greenwich. The practice was being conducted by a private soccer team that had secured permission to use the field from the Town. During practice, Sanford caught his foot in a pot hole in the field, which caused him to fall and suffer physical injuries.
The plaintiffs alleged that the Town operated Central Middle School and “was responsible for the care, maintenance, safety, supervision, and employing qualified personnel on the premises to ensure that the school environment was safe for individuals to enter, utilize and remain including but not limited to soccer fields, and was in possession of same.” Moreover, the plaintiffs allege that the Town allowed the soccer field to be used for soccer practice and that it invited members of the public to use the field.
The complaint further stated that Sanford’s injuries “were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the Town, in that it: (1) caused, allowed and permitted the soccer field to be in a dangerous condition when it knew or should have known that it was unsafe; (2) failed to remedy the situation when it knew or should have known that the soccer field would create a dangerous and hazardous condition to those using the field; (3) failed to remedy or repair a large pot hole in the field; (4) failed to give warning or notice of the unsafe condition; (5) failed to supply a safe field for players to practice; (6) failed to make reasonable and proper inspections; (7) failed to have sufficient, adequate and reasonably trained personnel on duty to inspect, maintain, repair and keep the premises reasonably safe; (8) failed to provide adequate facilities and equipment; and (9) failed to maintain adequately and properly the upkeep of the soccer field.”
They further alleged that the town had abrogated its governmental immunity. The Town and the Board of Education moved for summary judgment on all counts, citing governmental immunity doctrine.
The court focused in on whether one of the exceptions to the governmental immunity doctrine applies. “The plaintiffs argue that the Town is not entitled to governmental immunity for two reasons,” wrote the court. “First, the plaintiffs contend that the identifiable person-imminent harm exception applies. Second, the plaintiffs argue that the Town was engaged in a proprietary function because it received financial remuneration for renting the Central Middle School soccer field.”
The first element turned on whether Mark Sanford could be “considered an identifiable person subject to imminent harm.” The court cited a Connecticut Supreme Court case that suggested that for such a determination to apply, a parent would have had to relinquish custody of the minor, which is not what occurred in the instant case. Cotto v. Board of Education, 294 Conn. 265, 273, 984 A.2d 58 (2009) “It is clear that Mark Sanford was not legally required to be at Central Middle School on the date of the subject incident,” wrote the court. “… (T)here is no genuine issue of material fact that he does not fit within the narrow contours of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception as articulated by the Connecticut Supreme Court.”
Turning to the question of whether the use of the field represented a proprietary function and thus was exempted from the immunity doctrine, the court sided with the municipality.
Although “it is clear that although the Town derived revenue from allowing outside organizations to use its athletic fields during the 2005-2006 fiscal year, these collected funds did not come close to meeting the amount of money spent by the Town on field maintenance during that fiscal year,” the court wrote. “The town was not acting in a proprietary capacity when it allowed a soccer camp to use the school field for a fee.”
Mark Sanford, ppa et al. v. Town of Greenwich et al.; Super. Ct. Conn.; FSTCV075004775S, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3083; 11/22/10
