Page 31 - CLT081020

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS AUGUST 10, 2020 ¦ 31

count addressed in defendant’s motion, the court FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
explained that a claim of “equitable tolling” is not COMMISSION
a cause of action. The court accordingly granted
summary judgment as to that count as well, al-
though it noted that it would entertain a curative
pleading as to that count, if timely filed. The court PUBLIC RECORDS
accordingly granted summary judgment as to the
four counts addressed in defendant’s motion.
Correspondence Regarding Complaint
Against Teacher Not Subject to
MOTOR VEHICLE TORTS Redaction as “Education Record”

Allegations Insufficient to Support CASE: Wojtas v. Superintendent of Schools
Claim of Common Law Recklessness COURT: Freedom of Information Commission
DOC. NO.: FIC 2019-0493
CASE: Luciano v. Hine COURT OPINION BY: Freedom of Information Commission
COURT: Litchfield J.D. at Torrington
DOC. NO.: CV20-6024796 DATE: July 20, 2020 • PAGES: 9
The Freedom of Information Commission sus-
COURT OPINION BY: Shaban tained a complaint, finding that respondents
DATE: July 17, 2020 • PAGES: 9
violated the FOI Act in redacting certain por-
The court granted in part and denied in part de- tions of correspondence relating to a complaint
fendants’ motion to strike, finding plaintiff’s alle- against a teacher. Complainants sought the dis-
gations insufficient to state a claim for common closure of attendance and payroll records, dis-
law recklessness, but sufficient to state a claim for ciplinary records, and complaints filed regard-
statutory recklessness. While plaintiff was driving, ing former school system employee Timothy
another car rear-ended her vehicle, propelling it Chokas. Complainants also sought copies of
across the centerline of the road and into oncom- all emails sent to or from Chokas’s school email
ing traffic, where she was struck almost head-on by account, all emails sent to school officials re-
an oncoming vehicle. Plaintiff sued both the driver garding Chokas’ conduct towards student, and
and the owner of the vehicle that rear-ended her, as- various other correspondence regarding Cho-
serting claims of negligence and common law and kas. Respondents provided the requested docu-
statutory recklessness. Defendants moved to strike ments, but several of the documents contained
both recklessness claims. The trial court granted redactions. Complainants appealed to the com-
the motion as to plaintiff’s claim of common law mission, challenging one of those redactions. At
reckless, finding her allegations legally insufficient issue was a two-page correspondence sent from
to support such a claim. In support of that claim, the school principal to the school superinten-
plaintiff alleged merely that the road was long and dent, headlined with the subject. “Investigation
straight, that defendant driver should have had an of Student Allegation of Inappropriate Contact
unobstructed view of plaintiff’s vehicle, and that by a Teacher.” The student is referenced by ini-
defendant driver rear-ended plaintiff’s vehicle only tials only. The document also references inter-
because he deliberately, or in reckless disregard of views with four other unnamed students regard-
the consequences, chose to operate the vehicle he ing prior concerns raised about the same teach-
was driving as a completely distracted driver for a er. Finally, the document summarizes previous
significant period of time, causing him to fail to actions taken by the administration to assist the
make any attempt to slow, stop, or steer the vehicle teacher in developing strategies to ensure that
so as to avoid a violent collision with plaintiff’s ve- students would not feel uncomfortable in class.
hicle. These allegations, the court found, asserted After careful review, the commission concluded
nothing more than thoughtless, inadvertence, or that the correspondence at issue related to the
inattention. They were insufficient to assert a con- teacher, and not to the student, and thus did
scious or intentional decision to drive in a reck- not constitute an “education record” exempt
less manner. The court denied defendants’ motion from disclosure, as claimed by respondents. Re-
to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of statutory reckless- spondents accordingly violated the FOI Act in
ness, finding that plaintiff adequately stated such redacting a portion of the document. The com-
a claim by alleging defendant driver’s violation of mission directed that respondents forthwith
G.S. §14-222 and by alleging that such violation provide complainants with an unredacted copy
was the cause of her injuries. of the document, at no charge.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune