HARTFORD, Conn. (Legal Newsline) - The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of a jury verdict in favor of a man who drove into an open manhole after the snowplow in front of him dislodged the cover, ruling sovereign immunity protected the City of New Haven against his claim.
The open manhole was a “highway defect” under a statute granting broad immunity to local governments against such lawsuits, the state high court ruled. Had the plaintiff argued his case differently at trial he might have succeeded by proving the snowplow driver knew of the hazard in time to stop and warn him, the court said, but based on how the case was argued he lost.
William Dobie was driving to work on his familiar route in January 2011, following a few car lengths behind a municipal snowplow, when his vehicle’s front wheel plunged into an open manhole. In his initial complaint, Dobie said the manhole skidded under his vehicle, causing him to lose control. But the evidence at trial contradicted his story about the manhole lid being under his car and he was left with a claim that fell under Section 13a-149, which provides the exclusive remedy for plaintiffs to sue over road defects, an appeals court ruled.
The Supreme Court agreed. Dobie’s lawyers argued the city was liable because the snowplow driver caused the lid to be dislodged, leaving an open hole in the road.
“The problem with the plaintiff’s argument is that, under our statutes and case law, the fact that a municipal employee’s negligence might have caused the defect has been taken out of the equation,” the court ruled.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument treating an open manhole as a highway defect would lead to “unworkable results,” such as treating a municipal vehicle that ran a stop sign as a “defect” because it blocked the road from oncoming traffic. The Supreme Court said the definition doesn’t extend to objects that have “no necessary connection with the roadbed or public travel.”
The court finally rejected Dobie’s argument he was left with no remedy. The law still allows suits over highway defects, but only if the government knew about them and had plenty of time to fix them, the court ruled. In this case, the plaintiff should have argued at trial that the city knew because the snowplow driver circled back and told him he’d knocked the lid off, the court said.