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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7893244/gordon-v-bridgeport-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

1,527 chars

The plaintiff has included a large list of cases in her brief that hold that whether an act is ministerial or discretionary is a question of fact and is not properly resolved on a motion to strike. The crucial distinguish*181ing factor is that the duty of the municipality is unquestioned under the facts pleaded in those cases. See, e.g., Gauvin v. New Haven, supra (city had a duty to use due care in operating city park); Tango v. New Haven, supra, 205 (city had a duty to use due care in permitting the public to use city property for sled riding). In contrast, the city of Bridgeport and its employees had no duty, whether characterized as public or private, to provide police protection to the plaintiffs incapable under the facts alleged in the complaint. Had such a duty existed, then the plaintiff would have an opportunity to demonstrate that the defendants’ actions in carrying out that duty were either ministerial or fell under an exception for discretionary acts. The well pleaded facts in this case do not reveal the existence of any duty owed to the plaintiff’s incapable by the defendants. The cases cited by the plaintiff are inapposite. We conclude that the trial court did not err in deciding that the complaint did not sufficiently allege any violation of a ministerial act in carrying out the defendants’ duty because the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of such a duty. The same conclusion must be made as to the failure of the allegations to fall under any exception for discretionary acts. C

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text