Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency v. Jackson

Connecticut Supreme Court · 2019 · Torts

TortsNegligenceCausationAlternative LiabilityApportionment of Liabilitynegligencecausationburden shifting

Facts

Three teenage defendants entered an abandoned mill, drank alcohol, smoked cigarettes, and each discarded about five cigarette butts onto the wooden floor without extinguishing them. About thirty-five minutes after they left, the mill was engulfed in flames, and the fire destroyed both the mill and a public sewage line in the basement. The plaintiff compensated the town for the sewage line loss and then sued the defendants in subrogation. The plaintiff's fire experts opined that the likely cause of the fire was the careless disposal of the cigarettes, but the plaintiff could not prove which defendant's cigarette ignited the blaze.

Issue

Whether Connecticut should adopt the alternative liability doctrine so that, when multiple defendants acted negligently and one of them caused the plaintiff's harm but the plaintiff cannot prove which one, the burden of proving causation shifts to the defendants. Also, whether that doctrine could be applied in this case consistently with Connecticut's apportionment scheme and retroactively to the defendants' conduct.

Rule

Connecticut adopts the alternative liability doctrine as a limited exception to the usual rule that the plaintiff must prove causation. The doctrine applies when the plaintiff can show that all defendants acted negligently and harm resulted, all possible tortfeasors have been joined as defendants, and the defendants' negligent conduct was substantially simultaneous in time and of the same character so as to create the same risk of harm; once those conditions are met, the burden shifts to each defendant to prove that he did not cause the harm.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Milwaukee, four rooftop repair workers from North Harbor Builders finished lunch and, within a few minutes of one another, each flicked a still-lit cigarette into the same dry debris pile beside a warehouse skylight. A fire started shortly afterward and damaged the warehouse. The owner sues all four workers, offers evidence that each acted negligently, but cannot prove whose cigarette ignited the blaze.

Should the court apply the alternative liability doctrine to shift the burden on causation to the defendants?

Explanation. The doctrine is a limited exception to the usual rule that the plaintiff must prove causation. It applies when the plaintiff shows that all defendants acted negligently and harm resulted, all possible tortfeasors have been joined, and the negligent conduct was substantially simultaneous in time and of the same character so as to create the same risk of harm. Those conditions are satisfied here, so the burden shifts to each defendant to prove he did not cause the harm. The majority rejected any additional requirement that defendants have superior access to causation evidence. (Derived from Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency v. Jackson (n.d.).)