Municipality not Responsible for Wanton Employees, Says Court

Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Motion to strike common-law vicarious liability count against town was granted as Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-465 provided that municipality was not liable for willful or wanton acts of employee; willful, wanton or reckless meant same thing; and town could not be held liable under § 7-465 for employee's alleged reckless operation of vehicle.

General Statutes §7-465(a) provides, in relevant part, that  "[a]ny town, city or borough . . . shall pay on behalf of any employee of such municipality . . . all sums which such employee becomes obligated to pay by reason of the liability imposed upon such employee by law for damages awarded for infringement of any person's civil rights or for physical damages to person or property, except as set forth in this section, if the employee, at the time of the occurrence, accident, physical injury or damages complained  of, was acting in the performance of his duties and within the scope of his employment, and if such occurrence, accident, physical injury or damage was not the result of any willful or wanton act of such employee in the discharge of such duty."

A town's motion to strike a common-law vicarious liability count against it Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-465 explicitly provided that a municipality was not liable for the willful or wanton acts of an employee. While the state's highest court had attempted to draw definitional distinctions between the terms willful, wanton or reckless, in practice the three terms had been treated as meaning the same thing. Thus, the town could not be held liable under § 7-465 for an employee's alleged reckless operation of a tractor trailer.

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.

Source: Zidel v. Marek, 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2365, 2012 WL 4801599 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 18, 2012)