*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** MICHAEL DEVINE, ADMINISTRATOR (ESTATE OF TIMOTHY DEVINE) v. LOUIS FUSARO, JR., ET AL. (AC 42164) DiPentima, C. J., and Keller and Norcott, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff administrator of the estate of the decedent, D, sought to recover damages from the defendants, four members of the tactical unit of the State Police, for the wrongful death of D following his suicide after a standoff with law enforcement on certain public property in Groton. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that, in response to a Groton police captain’s request for the assistance of the tactical unit, the defendants arrived at the scene of the standoff, and, after several hours of unsuccess- ful negotiations with D, who was suicidal and armed with a handgun, they used less than lethal ammunition on him. D then shot himself in the head and died as a result of the gunshot. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that the action was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In reaching its decision, the court determined that the wrongful death action, as alleged in the complaint, satisfied the four criteria of the test set forth in Spring v. Constantino (168 Conn. 563), and, therefore, it was brought against the defendants in their official, rather than individual, capacities. On the plaintiff’s appeal to this court, held that the trial court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action on the ground of sovereign immunity: contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the four criteria of the Spring test were satisfied, and, therefore, the defendants were sued in their official, rather than their individual, capacities, as the defendants were state officials, the action against them concerned a matter in which they were representing the state and acting in the scope of their official police duties, the state was the real party in interest because the damages sought by the …Original document

This content is restricted to site members only. If you are an existing user, please log in to "My Account". New users may register here 

Existing Users Log In
New User Registration
*Required field