## Facts

- David Burns, a fourteen-year-old student at West Hill High School in Stamford, slipped on a sheet of ice in an outdoor courtyard during school hours and fractured his left elbow.
- The courtyard was a primary route between the school’s two buildings and was regularly used by students during the school day.
- The courtyard allegedly had not been sanded or salted, and students allegedly received no warnings about the icy condition.
- School policy assigned the head custodian responsibility to inspect the courtyard and order sanding and salting “as necessary,” leaving timing and manner to judgment.
- Burns and his mother sued the board of education, the superintendent, and the city for negligent maintenance of school grounds and failure to protect or warn students about a dangerous condition.

## Issues

1. Whether inspection and treatment of an icy school courtyard were discretionary governmental acts subject to immunity.
2. Whether a student required to be at school during school hours is an identifiable person or member of an identifiable class exposed to imminent harm such that the identifiable person/imminent harm exception defeats discretionary-act immunity.
3. Whether the negligence claims for failure to sand/salt or warn about the ice could proceed despite governmental immunity defenses.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s affirmance of partial summary judgment for the defendants.
- The Court treated the alleged maintenance decisions as discretionary but held that discretionary-act immunity did not bar suit because the plaintiff fell within the identifiable class/imminent harm exception.
- The Court concluded that students compelled to attend school and to use school passageways during school hours are a foreseeable class of victims exposed to imminent physical harm from known hazards like untreated ice.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the negligence claims.

## Legal Principles

- Governmental immunity generally protects public officials and entities from liability for negligent discretionary acts, absent an applicable exception.
- The identifiable person/imminent harm exception applies when it would be apparent to a public officer that a failure to act would likely subject an identifiable person or identifiable class to imminent harm.
- Public school students present during school hours, under school control, and required to traverse predictable routes on school property may constitute an identifiable class of foreseeable victims for purposes of the exception.
- Discretion in how and when to inspect and remediate hazards does not preclude negligence liability where officials’ inaction exposes that identifiable class to an imminent risk of physical injury.

## Conclusion

The court held that, although school officials’ decisions about inspecting and treating an icy courtyard were discretionary, governmental immunity did not bar the student’s negligence claims because students required to be on school grounds during school hours are an identifiable class of foreseeable victims facing imminent harm from untreated, known hazards.


Burns v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Stamford, 228 Conn. 640, 638 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1994)