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

641 chars
At oral argument, the plaintiff asserted that Navarette belonged to a foreseeable class of plaintiffs within the exception for certain discretionary acts outlined in Shore v. Stonington, supra. The plaintiff, however, has not alleged any facts to support her claim. According to the complaint, the police had no knowledge whatsoever of the robbery of Navarette, who made no attempt to notify the police, and who entered the project on his own. The facts of this case do not support the claim that Navarette was even a remotely foreseeable plaintiff. Id.; Sestito v. Groton, supra. This is a weaker case factually than Sestito on this aspect.