Background
Emma Charbono, then a Branford High School sophomore, sued the Town of Branford, its board of education, the school principal and assistant principal, and the superintendent after another student allegedly struck her more than twenty-five times in the head, neck, and back in the school gymnasium.
Charbono alleged that, after receiving threats from the other student, she searched unsuccessfully for an adult and entered the gymnasium seeking help. The gym teacher and paraprofessional were not present when the assault began; a teacher entered and stopped it about fifteen to twenty seconds later. Charbono alleged that the lack of gym supervision violated board policy 3516 and caused her injuries.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants under General Statutes § 52-557n. It held that policy 3516’s direction that school-related activities “shall be supervised by adults” did not create a ministerial duty exempt from governmental immunity.
The policy did not prescribe the time, manner, or scope of required supervision, require an adult’s constant physical presence throughout an activity, or otherwise eliminate officials’ judgment. Its first-aid-supplies and medical-guidance provisions likewise did not dictate how supervision had to occur. Thus, the alleged failure to supervise was discretionary, and the defendants were immune. Charbono did not challenge the trial court’s separate ruling rejecting the identifiable-person/imminent-harm exception.
Key Takeaways
- Mandatory wording alone does not make a school-supervision policy ministerial.
- A policy must clearly prescribe how and when officials must act to displace discretionary-act immunity.
- General requirements to supervise students, even where no adult is present at the injury site, ordinarily leave supervision decisions to official judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Connecticut municipal school defendants retain immunity for negligence claims based on general supervision policies unless a statute, rule, or policy sets out a specific, nondiscretionary course of conduct. Schools seeking to impose mandatory staffing or continuous-presence requirements must state those obligations clearly.