Burgess v. State
52 Conn. Supp. 562 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The state of Connecticut is immune from liability for injuries sustained on its recreational land made available to the public without charge, pursuant to the recreational land use immunity statute (§ 52-557g), unless the injuries are caused by the state's "wilful or malicious" conduct, which requires an intentional design to injure or a "substantial certainty" that harm will result, a standard not met by mere negligence or even gross negligence.
Facts:
- In October 1928, the Sunset Rock Association deeded 13.6 acres of land, known as Sunset Rock State Park, to the state of Connecticut "for state park purposes."
- Sunset Rock, maintained by the state, consisted of a heavily wooded strip bounded on the east by Ledge Road and on the west by a steep cliff, used primarily as a scenic overlook and for informal gatherings.
- The state erected a six-foot high chain-link fence intermittently between Ledge Road and the cliff, and posted a sign on an intact portion of the fence stating "Warning Cliff Natural Hazard."
- Members of the public had free access to Sunset Rock, but the park officially closed at sunset, a fact known to the state from its regular cleanup activities and to Richard Piotrowski from prior police encounters.
- Late on the night of June 10, 1994, Christopher Burgess and Richard Piotrowski, after consuming alcohol, entered Sunset Rock after dark through a section of the fence that had been pulled down by vandals.
- At approximately 10:45 p.m., Christopher Burgess accidentally stepped over the edge of the cliff and fell about seventy-five feet.
- Shortly thereafter, Richard Piotrowski, in an attempt to climb down the cliff and aid Christopher Burgess, also fell.
- Both Christopher Burgess and Richard Piotrowski had visited the park numerous times before the incident and were well aware of the presence of the cliff.
- Prior to the plaintiffs' fall, the record showed only one similar incident in the twenty-five years since the chain-link fence was installed.
Procedural Posture:
- The claims commissioner denied Christopher Burgess and Richard Piotrowski permission to sue the state of Connecticut.
- The General Assembly passed a special act in 2002, rejecting the claims commissioner's recommendation and authorizing Christopher Burgess and Richard Piotrowski to sue the state.
- In April 2003, Christopher Burgess and Richard Piotrowski commenced actions against the state in the Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain.
- The Superior Court (Schuman, J.) dismissed nuisance claims brought by both plaintiffs, finding no waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims.
- The Superior Court (Pittman, J.) ordered that the trial of liability and damages issues be bifurcated.
- The liability issues were tried to the Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain (Shortall, J.), on June 19, 21, and 22, 2012.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the state of Connecticut, when operating a public park free of charge, qualify for immunity from liability under the recreational land use immunity statute (§ 52-557g), and if so, did its alleged failure to adequately safeguard a cliff hazard constitute "wilful or malicious" conduct sufficient to overcome that immunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Hon. Joseph M. Shortall
Yes, the state of Connecticut, when operating a public park free of charge, qualifies for immunity from liability under the recreational land use immunity statute (§ 52-557g), and its alleged failure to adequately safeguard a cliff hazard did not constitute "wilful or malicious" conduct sufficient to overcome that immunity. The court held that the immunity granted by General Statutes § 52-557g, which shields private landowners who make their property available to the public without charge for recreational purposes, also applies to the state. This conclusion is based on the plain meaning of General Statutes § 4-160(c), which states that the rights and liability of the state, when sued, "shall be coextensive with and shall equal the rights and liability of private persons in like circumstances." The court distinguished Conway v. Wilton, which denied this immunity to municipalities, noting that Conway specifically excluded municipalities from the incentive for private landowners and that municipalities retain other forms of governmental immunity not available to the state in such actions. The court further clarified that general taxes do not constitute a "charge" for entry, as defined by § 52-557f, which requires an "admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter." Legislative discussions in 2011, though not part of the original legislative history, reinforced this interpretation. Regarding the "wilful or malicious" exception under § 52-557h, the court applied the common-law definition, equating it with wanton and reckless conduct. This standard requires "intentional conduct designed to injure" or a "substantial certainty that the harm will result from the conduct," which is "more than merely a foreseeable risk and more than even a strong probability," as established in Dubay v. Irish and Mingadlos v. CBS, Inc. The court found no evidence that the state's actions or inactions met this high standard. The state had taken measures like erecting and repairing a chain-link fence and posting warning signs. Given the rarity of prior incidents after the fence's installation (only one in 25 years before the plaintiffs' fall), the court could not find a "substantial certainty" of harm or an "extreme departure from ordinary care." Expert testimony supported the state's position that its safety measures were adequate for a little-used, undeveloped park. Therefore, the state was immune from liability under § 52-557g(a). As an alternative finding, the court also concluded that the plaintiffs were trespassers because they entered the park after dark, knowing it was closed. As such, the state owed them only a duty to refrain from causing injury intentionally or by willful, wanton, or reckless conduct, which was not breached. Furthermore, the dangerous condition (the cliff) was natural, not artificial, thus not triggering a higher duty under the Restatement (Second) of Torts for constant trespassers. Even if negligence were considered, the court found Christopher Burgess and Richard Piotrowski to be more than 50% negligent due to their entry after dark, intoxication, and knowledge of the cliff hazard, with Richard Piotrowski's attempted rescue also deemed reckless.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of Connecticut's recreational land use immunity statute by explicitly extending its protection to the state itself, provided the land is made available free of charge for recreational purposes. By rejecting the argument that taxes constitute a "charge" and applying the rationale of private landowner immunity to the state, the decision insulates the state from ordinary negligence claims in the management of its parks. Furthermore, the court reinforces the high bar for proving "wilful or malicious" conduct, emphasizing that it requires a "substantial certainty" of harm, making it very difficult for plaintiffs to overcome the immunity even if some safety measures were not taken. This ruling could reduce the state's potential liability for injuries in its natural recreational areas and encourages the state to continue opening such lands to the public without fear of excessive litigation over natural hazards.
