Facts
- A 15-year-old student attended a month-long, school-organized educational trip to China in summer 2007.
- Before the trip, the school’s international programs director reviewed CDC travel information that warned tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) occurred in the forested region to be visited and recommended insect-bite precautions.
- The school did not specifically warn students or parents about TBE, and did not require protective clothing or insect repellant; “bug spray” appeared only as a miscellaneous packing-list item.
- During the trip, students visited a forested mountain in a region where TBE was reported; the school did not warn students to take insect-bite precautions.
- The student and others became lost while descending and received insect bites; about ten days later she developed encephalitis symptoms.
- The student suffered catastrophic, permanent injuries, including severe speech and motor limitations and compromised brain functioning.
- The student and her parents sued the school for negligence in federal court; a jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded about $41.5 million, including about $31.5 million in noneconomic damages.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit found sufficient evidence of foreseeability but certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court questions on duty/public policy and remittitur; after the state court’s answers, the Second Circuit affirmed the federal judgment.
Issues
- Whether Connecticut public policy supports imposing a duty on a school that organizes a foreign trip to warn about or protect against the risk of a serious insect-borne disease.
- Whether a jury award of approximately $41.5 million, including approximately $31.5 million in noneconomic damages, warranted remittitur under Connecticut law.
Decision
- The Connecticut Supreme Court held Connecticut public policy supports imposing a duty on a school to warn about or protect against the risk of a serious insect-borne disease when it organizes a trip abroad.
- The court held the approximately $41.5 million award, including approximately $31.5 million in noneconomic damages, did not warrant remittitur.
- On return from certification, the Second Circuit applied these state-law determinations and affirmed the district court’s judgment, rejecting the school’s remaining challenges.
Legal Principles
- Under Connecticut negligence law, duty depends on foreseeability and public policy; foreseeability alone does not resolve duty.
- A school sponsoring a foreign trip may owe students a duty of reasonable care to warn about or take reasonable precautions against known, serious insect-borne disease risks in the areas visited when preventive measures are reasonably available.
- The duty recognized is limited by reasonable care and does not require schools to guarantee safety or warn against every speculative or rare disease risk.
- In assessing whether public policy supports a duty, Connecticut considers: (1) normal expectations of participants, (2) policy of encouraging the activity while ensuring safety, (3) avoidance of increased litigation, and (4) decisions of other jurisdictions.
- Remittitur is not warranted if noneconomic damages fall within the “necessarily uncertain limits of just damages” and are not so excessive as to shock the conscience, even where the injuries are lifelong and catastrophic and the award is very large.
Conclusion
Connecticut law permits imposing a reasonable-care duty on schools that organize foreign trips to warn about or protect students from known, serious insect-borne disease risks for which basic precautions are available, and a substantial noneconomic damages award for catastrophic, permanent injuries may stand when it remains within the bounds of just damages.