## Facts

- Homeowners in Naugatuck, Connecticut experienced property flooding eight times between 2009 and 2012 after heavy rainfall.
- Flooding allegedly occurred when a single nearby catch basin became clogged or was otherwise inadequate to divert water away from the property.
- The homeowners alleged the borough and municipal officials were responsible for the care, management, and maintenance of the storm-water drainage system.
- The complaint alleged negligent and reckless failures to inspect, clean, maintain, and repair storm drains and drainage pipes near the property, leaving them unsafe and inoperable.
- The homeowners relied on a local ordinance assigning the street commission responsibility for the storm-water drainage system.

## Issues

1. Whether municipal maintenance and repair of a storm-water drainage system, in light of an ordinance assigning responsibility, constitutes a ministerial duty or a discretionary function protected by governmental immunity under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n(a)(2)(B).
2. Whether prior precedent treating municipal drainage-system maintenance as ministerial remained valid under modern immunity doctrine.
3. Whether the identifiable person–imminent harm exception to discretionary-act immunity applies to repeated flooding occurring intermittently over several years.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the municipal defendants on governmental immunity grounds.
- The court held that maintenance and repair of the municipal storm-water drainage system is discretionary, not ministerial, under modern law.
- The court concluded the ordinance did not create a ministerial duty because it did not prescribe the time, mode, or specific manner of performance.
- The court held the identifiable person–imminent harm exception did not apply because the harm was not sufficiently imminent.
- The court expressly overruled prior authority to the extent it characterized municipal drainage maintenance as ministerial.

## Legal Principles

- Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n(a)(2)(B), municipalities are generally immune from liability for negligent acts or omissions requiring the exercise of judgment or discretion in carrying out official functions.
- A ministerial duty is one performed in a prescribed manner without the exercise of judgment; a discretionary duty requires judgment regarding whether, when, and how to act.
- An ordinance can create a ministerial duty only if it clearly compels performance in a prescribed manner; an assignment of general responsibility, without mandatory execution details, remains discretionary.
- The identifiable person–imminent harm exception requires (1) an identifiable victim or class, (2) imminent harm, and (3) actual or constructive notice; “imminent” demands a high probability of harm in the immediate or near future, not an episodic risk over time.

## Conclusion

The court held that municipal decisions about maintaining and repairing storm-water drainage infrastructure involve judgment and resource-allocation choices and are therefore discretionary acts protected by governmental immunity, absent a directive prescribing the precise manner of performance; intermittent flooding over several years did not establish imminent harm sufficient to trigger the identifiable person–imminent harm exception.


Northrup v. Witkowski, 332 Conn. 158, 210 A.3d 29 (Conn. 2019)