Tort / Dram Shop & Firefighter’s Rule – Appellate Court Limits Firefighter’s Rule

A Wolcott police officer injured by an intoxicated exotic dancer at an adult nightclub brought Dram Shop, reckless service of alcohol, negligent security, and negligent supervision claims against the club, its owner, and related entities. The trial court struck most of the counts, finding the Dram Shop notice untimely, the recklessness allegations insufficient, and many claims barred by the firefighter’s rule. The Appellate Court reversed in large part. It held that Governor Lamont’s COVID Executive Order No. 7G, which tolled “statutory time requirements relating to service of process,” also tolled the Dram Shop Act’s 120‑day notice requirement, making the plaintiff’s notice timely. Substantively, the court said allegations that the club continued to serve alcohol to a clearly intoxicated dancer “in conscious disregard of a substantial risk” in order to boost profits were enough to plead recklessness, not just negligence. It also limited the firefighter’s rule to premises‑condition claims: reckless service of alcohol and negligent supervision claims were not barred because they targeted operational decisions about serving and supervising the dancer, not defects in the physical property. However, negligent security claims that were framed as premises liability were barred by the firefighter’s rule. The allegations described “wanton and reckless conduct that, if proven, [are] legally sufficient to support a cause of action for reckless service of alcohol,” and the firefighter’s rule does not reach claims that “do not allege any dangerous or defective conditions on the premises.” Spiotti v. Clarke, AC 47397 & AC 47399 (Conn. App. Ct. Oct. 14, 2025).