Do Connecticut towns and cities want to be held responsible for their negligence that causes serious injuries to their residents? – Apparently not.  The Connecticut legislature is currently considering legislation that would provide immunity from lawsuits to municipalities that open their land to the public for recreational use.  Private citizens and businesses have to act with reasonable care when maintaining their property.  Towns and citizens should be held to the same standard.  If not, then what is the incentive for government employees to maintain public property so that it is reasonably safe for people to enjoy?  For better or worse, financial incentives to maintain property is the best mechanism to ensure that our municipalities are taking care of our parks, school grounds and other public areas.

This past week Attorney James Sabatini argued a case before the Connecticut Supreme Court.  The case involved a failure to obtain informed consent claim brought by the firm on behalf of our client against an oral surgeon.  Our client alleged that he suffered nerve damage as result of a tooth implant procedure and that prior to the procedure the doctor failed to disclose the material risk of nerve damage to him.  The issue before the CT Supreme Court was whether a failure to obtain informed consent cause of action required a written opinion letter pursuant to C.G.S. Section 52-190a to be attached to the lawsuit.  Attorney Sabatini argued that the statute did not apply to failure to obtain informed consent claims since such a claim is judged on a lay standard versus an expert standard.