Page 27 - CLT120720

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS DECEMBER 7, 2020 ¦ 27

payments, and the trial court found defendant were willful and outside the scope of his official
violated a probation condition by failing to make duties, and the city could not be held vicariously
restitution payments and sentenced him to an ad- liable. Plaintiff argued that a jury might find the
ditional thirty months incarceration. Defendant officer acted negligently, rather than willfully,
appealed, arguing the trial court failed to find when he “demonstrated the use of handcuffs” for
his nonpayment willful as required pursuant to a member of the Police Explorers. The trial court
Bearden, and that the state failed to introduce granted summary judgment for the city and found
sufficient evidence to prove willful refusal to pay the officer’s use of handcuffs was outside the scope
restitution. The state conceded the trial court of his employment, and his failure to protect the
failed to make an explicit finding of willfulness, plaintiff was discretionary and was subject to gov-
but argued its implicit findings were constitution- ernmental immunity. Plaintiff appealed, and the
ally sufficient where the parties told the court court reversed the decision of the trial court. The
willfulness was a contested issue and the court court found there was a genuine issue of material
expressed understanding defendant claimed his fact as to whether the officer’s conduct was willful
failure to pay was not willful. The court found an or negligent, where the city knew that the officer
explicit finding of willfulness in refusal to pay res- had a history and tendency to demonstrate use of
titution was required, and therefore reversed and his handcuffs and to exercise poor discretion with
remanded to the trial court to make such a find- them. The court found that “a jury reasonably
ing. The court further found that the trial court could infer from [officer’s] conduct that he was not
made no finding of whether or not the defendant acting wilfully. …” The court also found the trial
actually had the funds to make the restitution court erred in rendering summary judgment on
payment, only whether he had incoming funds governmental immunity when such grounds were
to make future payments. The court reversed the not argued before it.

judgment of the trial court. SUPERIOR COURT

PERSONAL INJURY

Court Finds Officer’s Actions Not Willful CIVIL PROCEDURE
in Assault Claim
Court Found Defendants Had Engaged
CASE: Doe v. Flanigan in Bad Faith Conduct and Granted
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 42567
COURT OPINION BY: Bright Plaintiffs’ Motion to Terminate Stay of
DATE: November 24, 2020 • PAGES: 18 Execution on Any Appeal
Plaintiff, a minor under the age of 16, was a mem-
ber of the Police Explorers club, which allowed CASE: Birmingham v. Profeta
young students to learn about a career as a police COURT: Litchfield J.D. at Torrington
officer. On the way to a meeting, plaintiff stopped DOC. NO.: CV-18-6020440
by an electronics store where one of the officers COURT OPINION BY: Shaban
DATE: November 13, 2020 • PAGES: 7
who runs the club and a third party were social- Following a bench trial on plaintiffs’ summary pro-
izing. Plaintiff asked the officer to demonstrate cess complaint seeking possession of certain real
handcuffs on him, and the officer restrained plain- property, the court entered judgment of posses-
tiff on the ground in handcuffs while the third sion in favor of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a motion
party sexually assaulted plaintiff with a sex toy. to prospectively terminate the stay of execution on
Plaintiff filed a complaint against the city as the any appeal that might be filed by any defendant.
officer’s employer, alleging false arrest, partici- The court granted the motion. Prior to discussing
pation in a sexual assault, negligence in pushing the factors that determine whether administration
plaintiff to the ground and failing to protect him of justice requires a termination of an automatic
from a sexual assault, and failure to report the sex- stay, the court noted that defendants engaged in
ual assault. The officer settled these complaints, conduct that was not in good faith by filing base-
but plaintiff alleged the defendant city was still less motions throughout the process. The court
liable for the officer’s carelessness and negligence. then analyzed the factors set forth in precedent.
Defendant filed special defenses and moved for It found that there was virtually no likelihood of
summary judgment, arguing the officer’s actions defendants’ success on appeal. There would be no

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune