Family of Amanda Monnington seeks court review after claims commissioner denies permission to sue in Enders State Forest death

HARTFORD — Attorneys for the estate of 15-year-old Amanda Monnington asked the Judiciary Committee on March 28 to allow their claim to proceed to superior court after the claims commissioner denied permission to sue the state for injuries that led to Monnington’s death.

Attorney Jack (John) Dolan said the claim arises from Monnington’s June 1, 2013 fall from the top of a waterfall in Enders State Forest in Granby. The family says the state had notice of similar incidents at the same location and “did absolutely nothing to warn or guard against visitors continuing to use this trail.” Dolan told the committee that the state’s repeated awareness of prior falls distinguishes the case from routine recreational incidents.

“Even if [the recreational-land-use statute] applies to the state, then there becomes a question of whether the claims commissioner has jurisdiction to hear claims like this one that are based on the exception to a recreational land use immunity, for the willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against the dangerous condition,” Dolan said.

The committee heard that the claims-commissioner office has reached inconsistent outcomes in related matters: the commissioner previously allowed a separate claim (referred to in the record as the Messing matter) to proceed to superior court; that case later prompted a superior-court motion practice and remains pending. Counsel told the committee the inconsistency means both matters should be decided by a single superior court so there is consistent precedent.

Representative Fishman and other members asked about the timeline and whether the state had taken remedial measures after the incidents. Dolan replied that prior to Monnington’s death, at least six similar falls had been reported and that the state investigated those incidents but did not make changes that prevented further falls. He said a similar claim was later allowed to proceed in superior court in a different matter.

No vote was taken. The family seeks permission to have the case heard in superior court and argued that the record shows a factual pattern that could meet the willful-or-malicious exception to recreational-land-use immunity.

Background

The recreational land-use statute cited in testimony (referred to in the transcript as "52 dash 5 57 g") generally shields owners who open land for public recreational use from negligence liability but contains an exception for the willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition. Counsel argued the facts here — repeated prior incidents at the same location — present disputed questions of law and fact better resolved by a state court than by administrative dismissal.

Next steps

The committee did not act during the hearing. Counsel asked that the committee send the matter to court or otherwise allow the family to proceed in superior court; the claims commissioner’s office and the attorney general’s office presented their positions in a later portion of the hearing.