## Facts

- Raymond Santopietro, Jr. attended an organized amateur softball game at a city park and stood behind the backstop as a spectator.
- A player, Mark Piombino, threw his bat after hitting the ball; the bat traveled through an opening in or under the backstop fencing and struck Raymond Jr., causing serious injury.
- The game was officiated by two certified, experienced umpires, David Brennan and Bruce Shepard, whose responsibilities included maintaining control of the game for player and spectator safety through warnings, ejections, and other discipline.
- Plaintiffs claimed Piombino’s team had engaged in earlier unruly conduct (including a prior bat-throwing incident), making the injury foreseeable; the umpires denied awareness of such conduct.
- Raymond Santopietro, Sr. sought damages for bystander emotional distress based on witnessing his son’s injury.

## Issues

1. Whether failure to file a postverdict motion to set aside the verdict under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-228b limits appellate review to plain error.
2. Whether the trial court properly directed a verdict for the umpires where plaintiffs offered no expert testimony to establish breach of the applicable standard of care for discretionary in-game control decisions.
3. Whether the trial court properly barred the father’s bystander emotional distress claim (reached only if the negligence claim against the umpires remained viable).

## Decision

- The court held that failure to file a motion to set aside the verdict under § 52-228b did not restrict appellate review to plain error.
- The court affirmed the directed verdict for the umpires, assuming a duty to exercise reasonable judgment to control the game but concluding plaintiffs failed to prove breach without expert testimony.
- Because negligence by the umpires was not established, the court did not reach the evidentiary ruling precluding the father’s bystander emotional distress claim.
- The judgment was affirmed in all respects.

## Legal Principles

- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-228b is intended to ensure the trial court has an opportunity to address postverdict claims of error; it does not, by itself, reduce appellate review to plain error when no motion is filed.
- Even if sports officials owe a duty to exercise reasonable judgment to control play and prevent unreasonable risk of injury, breach of that duty ordinarily must be shown through expert testimony when the alleged negligence concerns discretionary officiating decisions.
- Expert testimony is generally required to establish both the relevant standard of care and that the official’s conduct was an abuse of discretion, absent exceptional circumstances where negligence would be obvious to lay jurors.
- Prior precedent inconsistent with the requirement of expert testimony to prove breach in this context was overruled to that extent.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the umpires because the plaintiffs failed to present expert evidence establishing that the umpires’ discretionary game-control decisions fell below the standard of care, and it held that omission of a postverdict motion under § 52-228b did not confine appellate review to plain error.


Santopietro v. City of New Haven, 239 Conn. 207, 682 A.2d 106 (Conn. 1996)