## 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

1. 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.
2. Whether alleging an affirmative release of a quarantined dog satisfies the “positive act” requirement for a municipal nuisance claim.
3. 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.


Wright v. Brown, 167 Conn. 464, 356 A.2d 176 (Conn. 1975)