July 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 29

issue of negligence liability, Plaintiff
argued further trial proceedings were
necessary to resolve " genuine issues
of material fact concerning whether
the defendant violated a ministerial
duty " ; i.e., a mandatory legal requirement
which precludes any governmental
discretion or judgment.
In addition, Plaintiff contended
evidence existed to support a claim
for nuisance liability. Plaintiff also
argued the Town had failed to conclusively
establish the assumption of
risk defense in the pretrial record.
As noted by the court, summary
judgment in favor of the Defendant
Town would only be appropriate
when the pretrial " pleadings, affidavits
and any other proof submitted "
conclusively establish the Town is
" entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. " In other words, the pretrial
record would have to lack any
" genuine issue as to any material
fact " on the alleged liability claims
that would warrant further consideration
and resolution in a jury trial.
Discretionary Function
Immunity
In this case, the Town had argued
it was entitled to summary judgment
for any alleged negligence
based upon governmental immunity
applicable
to
retained
by the Town to line the
court had referenced " the Rulebook
and guidelines and recommendations
from the American Pickleball
Association " as instructive in
" providing the minimum standard
measurements for courts. " Accordingly,
Plaintiff alleged the Town's
failure to " follow these proffered
standards resulted in a pickleball
court with inadequate and unsafe
dimensions, in violation of a ministerial
duty. "
In addressing the issue of governmental
liability and immunity,
the court cited the following applicable
state law, which " allows a
plaintiff to bring a direct cause of
action for negligence against a political
subdivision of the state " :
Section 52-557n abrogates the
common-law rule of governmental
immunity and sets forth the circumstances
in which a municipality
is liable for damages to person
and property. These circumstances
include the negligent acts or omissions
of the political subdivision or
its employees or agents.
Under state law, the court further
" discretionary
functions. " In so doing, the Town
contended " the operation and installation
of pickleball courts at
Foote Park and their inspection,
maintenance, and repair are discretionary
functions. "
In
response,
Plaintiff
claimed
" the USA Pickleball Rulebook
establishes
minimum standards
for the playing area of pickleball
courts, creating a ministerial duty
for the defendant's courts. " According
to Plaintiff, the contractor
noted " municipal employees are
liable for the misperformance of
ministerial acts or duties that are to
be performed in a prescribed manner
without the exercise of judgment
or discretion. " On the other
hand, the court noted: " The hallmark
of a discretionary act is that it
requires the exercise of judgment. "
Further, the court found municipal
employee liability
for negligence
in the performance of ministerial
acts was limited to the following
circumstances:
Connecticut courts consistently
have held that to demonstrate the
existence of a ministerial duty on
the part of a municipality and its
agents, a plaintiff ordinarily must
point to some statute, city charter
provision, ordinance, regulation,
rule, policy, or other directive that,
by its clear language, compels a
municipal employee to act in a
prescribed manner, without the
exercise of judgment or discretion.
As a result, the court found: " Descriptions
of general practices or
expectations that guide an employee's
exercise of discretion do not
create a ministerial duty. " On the
contrary, a ministerial duty would
require " specificity " in " all aspects
of the directive " :
If there is no directive setting
forth the manner in which a municipal
official is to perform the
act, then the act is not ministerial
and is therefore discretionary in
nature. In general, the exercise of
duties involving inspection, maintenance
and repair of hazards are
considered discretionary acts entitled
to governmental immunity.
Moreover, for purposes of municipal
liability under state law, the
court noted " municipal acts that
would
otherwise
be
considered
discretionary will only be deemed
ministerial if a policy or rule limiting
discretion in the completion of
such acts exists. "
Applying these principles to the
facts of this particular case, the
court found " no ordinances, directives
or policies regarding the
manner or method the defendant is
to install, line, orient, maintain, repair,
or inspect benches and courts
in Foote Park. " As a result, the
court held " the defendant's placement
of the court, and any duty to
inspect, maintain, and repair the
courts or benches at Foote Park are
discretionary, rather than ministerial
in nature " :
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | JULY 2 0 2 3
| Parks & Recreation
29
July 2023 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of July 2023 - Parks & Recreation
