HARTFORD, Conn. (Legal Newsline) - A volleyball referee came up scoreless after a Connecticut appeals court affirmed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the Newtown School District over injuries he suffered after his viewing platform collapsed.
Albert Buehler, a 40-year veteran referee, was officiating a women’s volleyball match at Newtown High School in 2015 when the elevated platform he was standing on gave way. Students typically erected the stand, which consisted of a padded platform secured to two ladders.
In 2017, Buehler sued the Town of Newtown, the school district, the school superintendent, the principal, the volleyball coach and the athletic director. A trial court dismissed the case, however, granting all of the defendants municipal immunity under state statute, which protects against negligent acts by officials exercising discretionary authority.
Buehler appealed, arguing he fit within an exception from immunity for “identifiable persons” required to be present on public property. As a “school official,” Buehler argued, he had to referee the volleyball match.
The Connecticut Appellate Court disagreed. In an Aug. 3 decision, a three-judge panel stuck to precedent holding that “identifiable persons” are people legally required to be on public property, a narrow definition that thus far has only included schoolchildren legally required to attend class.
The Connecticut Supreme Court has previously refused to extend the definition to include plaintiffs including a woman the court said wasn’t compelled to drive her car on a particular stretch of road and a milk deliveryman who argued his employer required him to bring his supplies into a school.
The volleyball referee got his assignment from an online system and could accept or reject it, the court noted.
“Whether the plaintiff was compelled to be at the location where the injury occurred remains a paramount consideration in determining whether the plaintiff was an identifiable person,” the appellate court ruled. In a footnote, the court observed that at least three dissenting justices on the Connecticut Supreme Court have urged a broader definition of “identifiable persons.
“Nevertheless, this court is required to follow binding Supreme Court precedent unless and until our Supreme Court sees fit to alter it,” the judges said.
The court also rejected arguments school officials were negligent for failing to maintain and inspect the viewing stand or install warning signs. Any negligent actions were discretionary, the appeals court said, meaning officials were entitled to governmental immunity under a doctrine intended to prevent the threat of legal liability from hindering public officials from exercising judgment in their work.