Haynes v. Middletown

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** TRACEY HAYNES ET AL. v. CITY OF MIDDLETOWN (SC 18665) Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Zarella, McLachlan, Eveleigh and Harper, Js.* Argued April 20—officially released September 25, 2012 Hugh D. Hughes, with whom, on the brief, were Wil- liam F. Gallagher, Michael Oh and Mark A. Balaban, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Matthew Dallas Gordon, with whom were Nicholas N. Ouellette and, on the brief, Ruth Kurien and Deirdre D. Stokes, for the appellee (defendant).  Opinion PER CURIAM. The named plaintiff, Tracey Haynes, on her own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff Jasmon Vereen, her minor son, brought this action against the defendant, the city of Middletown, claiming that Vereen had incurred injuries when a fellow student at Middle- town High School pushed him into a broken locker. Responding to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the defendant filed its answer and special defense claiming municipal immunity pursuant to General Statutes § 52-557n. Although the plaintiffs filed a reply denying the special defense, the plaintiffs failed to plead that any exception to the defendant’s immunity applied to them. See Prac- tice Book § 10-57. After the plaintiffs presented their case, the defendant filed a motion for a directed verdict on which the court heard argument and reserved deci- sion. At the conclusion of the evidence, neither party requested an instruction pertaining to the special defense of municipal immunity or any exceptions thereto. See Practice Book § 16-21. The court instructed the jury on principles of negligence but made no refer- ence to the special defense. After the jury rendered a verdict for Vereen, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict. The trial court heard argument and granted both the motion for a directed verdict and the motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of govern- mental immunity and rendered judgment for the defen- dant. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the alternative ground that ‘‘the plaintiffs never made the applicability of the identifiable victim, imminent harm exception to discretionary act immunity a legal issue in the case because they failed to plead it in their complaint or in their reply to the defendant’s special defense of governmental immunity.’’ Haynes v. Middle- town, 122 Conn. App. 72, 82, 997 A.2d 636 (2010). We then granted the plaintiffs’ petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s [order] setting aside the jury’s verdict because the plaintiffs failed to plead the imminent harm exception to municipal immu- nity in their reply?’’ Haynes v. Middletown, 298 Conn. 907, 3 A.3d 70 (2010). Because the issue of the plaintiffs’ failure to plead the identifiable victim, imminent harm exception to dis- cretionary act immunity in their complaint or in their reply to the defendant’s special defense of governmen- tal immunity had not been raised or briefed prior to oral argument before the Appellate Court, the plaintiffs argue that the Appellate Court therefore could not decide the case on this basis. ‘‘We have long held that, in the absence of a question relating to subject matter jurisdiction, the Appellate Court may not reach out and decide [an appeal] before it on a basis that the parties never have raised or briefed. . . . To do otherwise would deprive the parties of an opportunity to present arguments regarding those issues.’’ (Citations omitted.) Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 282 Conn. 556, 560, 923 A.2d 686 (2007). ‘‘If the Appellate Court decides to address an issue not previously raised or briefed, it may do so only after requesting supplemental briefs from the parties or allowing argument regarding that issue.’’ State v. Dalzell, 282 Conn. 709, 715, 924 A.2d 809 (2007). At oral argument before the Appellate Court in the present case, the defendant tangentially raised the issue of the plaintiffs’ failure to plead the identifiable victim, imminent harm exception to discretionary act immu- nity. Two judges on the panel discussed this issue with the defendant. The plaintiffs had reserved three minutes for rebuttal. During these three minutes, the plaintiffs addressed two issues raised during the defendant’s argument, but they did not refer to the defendant’s claim that they had failed to plead the identifiable victim, imminent harm exception to discretionary act immu- nity. Nor did the plaintiffs request the opportunity dur- ing or after argument to file a supplemental brief. Upon review of the record on appeal and the briefs and oral argument of the parties before this court, we conclude that the plaintiffs did not have adequate notice of this alternative basis or sufficient opportunity to address it. We therefore conclude that the Appellate Court improperly decided the case on the basis of the plaintiffs’ failure to plead the identifiable victim, immi- nent harm exception to discretionary act immunity and improperly affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for consideration of that issue only after affording the par- ties the opportunity to brief and argue that issue. The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceed- ings in accordance with this opinion. * The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.