Connecticut
How Cohen v. City of New York applies in Connecticut: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Connecticut recognizes the principles of governmental immunity and duty of care outlined in Cohen v. City of New York, balancing public policy considerations with the need to provide redress for wrongdoing. In Connecticut, exceptions to governmental immunity follow similar contours, allowing for tort claims where actionable negligence is demonstrated.
In Connecticut, a public entity may be liable for negligence if the act leading to injury was not a discretionary function and fell within an exception to governmental immunity as defined in statutes and case law.
The court held that public entities are shielded from liability for those decisions classified as discretionary in nature, affirming the principles established in Cohen.
This case held that governmental entities can be liable for failing to protect individuals from foreseeable harm, thus outlining a direct departure from absolute immunity.
The court ruled that sovereign immunity does not apply when the state engages in a proprietary function for profit, further clarifying the bounds of governmental immunity.
Connecticut's approach to governmental immunity and negligence claims mirrors federal standards to an extent; however, state statutes explicitly outline exceptions that are less developed at the federal level. Connecticut's jurisprudence tends to place significant emphasis on public policy reasons for maintaining the immunity doctrine while allowing certain narrow exceptions.
Understanding governmental immunity and exceptions is crucial for the Connecticut bar exam, particularly in torts and negligence contexts where government entities are involved.