Wright v. Brown
167 Conn. 464, 356 A.2d 176, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 1094 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public official's violation of a mandatory statutory duty, such as a specific quarantine period for a biting dog, is a non-discretionary ministerial act for which a municipality may be held liable. The quarantine statute protects the general public, and the premature release of such an animal is a 'positive act' sufficient to support a nuisance claim.
Facts:
- A dog owned by William Brown attacked a person.
- Gail Litke, the dog warden for the Town of Plainville, quarantined the dog pursuant to state statute § 22-358.
- The statute required a fourteen-day quarantine period for biting dogs.
- Litke released the dog from quarantine before the fourteen-day period had expired.
- After its premature release, the same dog attacked and injured Mary F. Wright.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary F. Wright sued William Brown, the Town of Plainville, and Gail Litke in a Connecticut trial court.
- The Town of Plainville and Litke filed a demurrer (a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim) against the counts alleging negligence and nuisance.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer, dismissing the claims against the town and the dog warden.
- Wright, the plaintiff, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
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 a state statute requiring the quarantine of a biting dog protect the general public, and does a dog warden's premature release of such a dog constitute a ministerial, positive act for which a municipality can be held liable for negligence and nuisance?
Opinions:
Majority - Bogdanski, J.
Yes, a state statute requiring the quarantine of a biting dog protects the general public, and a dog warden's premature release of such a dog constitutes a ministerial, positive act for which a municipality can be held liable for negligence and nuisance. The court reasoned that the purpose of a 'quarantine' is to protect the community from disease, not just the initial victim, meaning the plaintiff, as a member of the general public, was within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect. Furthermore, the act of releasing the dog from quarantine was a 'positive act' creating a dangerous condition, not a mere failure to act, which is sufficient to support a nuisance claim against the municipality. Finally, the court held that while the initial decision to quarantine a dog involves discretion, the statutory duty to hold the dog for the full fourteen days is mandatory and therefore 'ministerial.' A municipality is not immune from liability for negligence in the performance of such ministerial duties.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of municipal liability by distinguishing between discretionary (governmental) and ministerial duties. It establishes that when a statute imposes a clear, mandatory, and non-discretionary command on a public employee, the municipality loses its governmental immunity for negligence related to that duty. The ruling also broadens the definition of a 'positive act' for nuisance claims against municipalities to include the affirmative release of a dangerous instrumentality from custody. This increases the accountability of government bodies for failing to follow specific safety regulations prescribed by law.
