Court Denies Immunity Defense in School Supervision Case

Governmental Immunity / School Injuries

Court revisits when school safety policies can create a ministerial duty and open up liability despite governmental immunity

This case involves a ninth-grade student injured in a gym class at Crosby High School when two older students with a history of hitting other students allegedly struck her during class. The City and Board of Education moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no clearly defined ministerial duty and that the student did not fit the “identifiable person / imminent harm” exception to discretionary-act immunity. The plaintiff pointed to specific written policies and procedures governing supervision of students in gym class, including how many teachers were required and what they were supposed to do during class. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court held there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether those policies created a ministerial duty that was violated. Because of that unresolved factual issue, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety. “Because there remains an issue of fact regarding violation of a ministerial duty, the motion for summary judgment is denied.” The court emphasizes that to show a ministerial duty, a plaintiff “ordinarily must point to some … directive that, by its clear language, compels a municipal employee to act in a prescribed manner.”  Morales-Lawli v. City of Waterbury, No. UWY-CV-23-6071506-S (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 10, 2025).