Marvin v. Board of Education of Town of Colchester

         Argued March 13, 2019.

Page 1156

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1157

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1158

         Appeal from the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London, where the court, Cole-Chu, J.

          James V. Sabatini, Newington, for the appellant (plaintiff).

         Gary Kaisen, New Haven, for the appellee (defendant).

         DiPentima, C.J., and Alvord and Conway, Js.

          OPINION

         CONWAY, J.

Page 1159

          [191 Conn.App. 171] The plaintiff, Megan Marvin, through her mother and next friend, Carole Marvin, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the Board of Education of the Town of Colchester, on the basis of governmental immunity. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment because there remains a genuine issue of material fact with respect to (1) whether the defendant’s inspection and maintenance of a locker room floor constitutes a ministerial duty for the purpose of governmental immunity, and (2) whether the plaintiff was an identifiable person subject to imminent harm, thus invoking the identifiable person, imminent harm exception to governmental immunity. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         [191 Conn.App. 172] The record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, reveals the following facts and procedural history. The plaintiff was a student at Bacon Academy (school), the town of Colchester’s public high school, where she played on the school’s varsity softball team. On the evening of May 7, 2013, upon returning to the school from an away softball game, the plaintiff slipped and fell on a puddle of water in the women’s locker room, causing her to sustain injuries to her left knee.

         On April 29, 2015, the plaintiff commenced the present action against the defendant. The complaint alleged, inter alia,^[1] one count of negligence against the defendant pursuant to General Statutes § 52-557n (a) (1) (A).^[2] The crux of the plaintiff’s negligence claim was that the defendant, through its agents, failed to adequately ...