Garmendia Valenzuela v. Kas's Bar & Resturant LLC

Background

The court considered renewed motions for summary judgment by Putnam County and Deputy Keith Blessing in two consolidated cases. The plaintiffs were Tania Garmendia Valenzuela, as administrator of the estate of Nelson Osegueda Martinez; Buani Nunez, as administrator of the estate of Warner Z. Nunez; and Beatriz Grajales.

At approximately 4:00 a.m. on September 3, 2016, Raymond Rivera drove a Nissan Maxima away from Kas’s Bar and Restaurant with Elena Albarran, Warner Nunez, Beatriz Grajales, and Nelson Osegueda as passengers. Deputy Blessing observed the vehicle traveling with a broken headlight. Defendants also asserted that the vehicle veered, crossed the dividing line, and entered the opposite lane; the plaintiffs disputed some details of that account.

Blessing activated his emergency lights and siren, but Rivera did not stop and accelerated. Blessing pursued the Maxima, reaching approximately 89 miles per hour while the Maxima traveled at least as fast. Blessing later decided to end the pursuit as the vehicles approached a business district in Danbury, Connecticut, where he anticipated more traffic and access ramps to Interstate 84. He slowed and disengaged from the pursuit. Approximately three seconds after Blessing deactivated his siren, the Maxima struck a utility pole. Rivera, Warner Nunez, and Nelson Osegueda died, and Grajales was injured.

Claims and Earlier Ruling

The plaintiffs initially asserted negligence and other state-law claims, as well as civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Blessing and Putnam County. The plaintiffs withdrew all federal claims. Kas’s Bar and Restaurant and all crossclaims were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice before the renewed motions were decided.

On March 30, 2020, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on recklessness claims and denied the motions on the other claims without prejudice to renewal after the Connecticut Supreme Court decided Borelli v. Renaldi. Valenzuela did not oppose the renewed motion; Nunez and Grajales opposed it.

Legal Analysis

Because the cases were based on diversity jurisdiction, the court applied New York choice-of-law principles. It compared Connecticut General Statutes § 14-283 with New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, both of which allow emergency-vehicle operators to disregard certain traffic rules but require regard for the safety of others. New York law protects an officer from liability for a police pursuit unless the officer acted with reckless disregard for safety. Connecticut law provides immunity for discretionary governmental acts, while not immunizing ministerial acts that must be performed in a prescribed manner.

The court relied on the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Borelli, which held that an officer’s decision to initiate a pursuit under § 14-283 is discretionary. Although Borelli did not decide every question about operating a police vehicle during a pursuit, this court concluded that the officer’s decisions about how to conduct, continue, and terminate a pursuit also require ongoing judgment and discretion. Because the court had already ruled that Blessing was not reckless, it held that Blessing was immune from liability for negligence under either Connecticut or New York law.

The court also held that Putnam County was protected by Connecticut’s statutory immunity for negligent acts or omissions involving discretionary official functions. It therefore granted summary judgment on the negligence claims against both Blessing and the County.

The wrongful-death claims could not survive because they were derivative: they depended on an underlying valid claim belonging to the deceased person. Because the court found no surviving underlying claims, it dismissed the wrongful-death claims. Valenzuela’s loss-of-services claim also could not proceed because it was derivative of the injured spouse’s claim, which had been terminated by an adverse merits judgment. Finally, the court dismissed the negligent-hiring-and-retention claims against Putnam County because New York law requires proof of the standard elements of negligence, which were not satisfied here.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ renewed motions for summary judgment. It directed the clerk to terminate the motions and close Case Nos. 17-CV-8923 and 17-CV-9279.