Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)

Citation
Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
Parent Document
Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161 (1988)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1988-07-05

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text

1,011 chars
The first claim concerns whether the trial court erred in ruling that the city and its representatives owed no duty to Navarette as a matter of law. The plaintiff, however, asserts that there is a threshold inquiry in the area of municipal liability—deciding if the official acts or omissions are ministerial or discretionary—and because that is a question for the trier of fact, it is inappropriate to decide the issue on a motion to strike. The plaintiff relies heavily on a statement in Gauvin v. New Haven, 187 Conn. 180, 186, 445 A.2d 1 (1982), that “[w]hether the acts complained of in operating a city park were governmental or ministerial is a factual question which depends upon the nature of the act complained of.” The plaintiff also refers to Sestito v. Groton, 178 Conn. 520, 528, 423 A.2d 165 (1979), Tango v.New Haven, 173 Conn. 203, 204, 377 A.2d 284 (1977), and a number of Superior Court cases that hold, on varying fact patterns, that the issue of governmental immunity is a question of fact.