Facts
- Mary F. Wright sought damages for injuries from a dog bite by a dog owned by William Brown.
- The complaint alleged the same dog had attacked another person less than fourteen days earlier, triggering a quarantine by the town dog warden under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-358.
- Wright alleged the dog warden released the dog before the fourteen-day quarantine period expired and that this premature release placed the dog in a position to attack her.
- Wright asserted negligence counts against the town and dog warden based on noncompliance with § 22-358 and nuisance counts based on the dog’s release.
- The trial court sustained a demurrer to the negligence and nuisance counts against the town and dog warden, reasoning the statute protected only against bites by diseased dogs and Wright did not allege disease.
- Wright declined to plead over; judgment entered for the town and dog warden on those counts, and Wright appealed.
Issues
- Whether an alleged violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-358 can support statutory negligence where a member of the public is bitten after an asserted premature release from quarantine.
- Whether alleging an affirmative release of a quarantined dog satisfies the “positive act” requirement for a municipal nuisance claim.
- Whether the town is shielded by governmental immunity, or whether § 22-358 imposes a mandatory, ministerial duty that can support municipal liability at the pleading stage.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed and set aside the judgment sustaining the demurrer to the negligence and nuisance counts against the town and dog warden.
- The court held § 22-358 was intended to protect the general public from dog bites during the quarantine period; Wright alleged an injury of the type the statute sought to prevent.
- The court held the complaint alleged a “positive act” because it asserted the dog warden affirmatively released the dog before the quarantine ended.
- The court held the quarantine duty under § 22-358 was mandatory and ministerial once the statutory predicate (a covered bite) was found, defeating municipal immunity at the demurrer stage.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Legal Principles
- Statutory negligence is actionable when (1) the plaintiff is within the class the statute protects and (2) the injury is the type the statute intends to prevent.
- A dog-bite quarantine statute requiring confinement for a fixed period may be construed as a public-safety measure protecting the general public from additional bites during quarantine.
- For municipal nuisance liability, a complaint must allege a municipal “positive act”; an affirmative release of a dangerous condition can satisfy this requirement.
- Governmental immunity does not bar claims based on breach of a mandatory, ministerial statutory duty, as opposed to discretionary governmental functions.
Conclusion
The court held that allegedly releasing a biting dog before completion of a mandatory fourteen-day quarantine could support statutory-negligence and nuisance claims by a later bite victim and that the municipality could not claim immunity at the pleading stage because the quarantine obligation was ministerial.