Vernon hiker seeks permission to sue after state-owned footbridge collapsed, leaving him paralyzed

HARTFORD — A Vernon resident who sustained a catastrophic spinal cord injury after falling through a state-owned footbridge told the Judiciary Committee on March 28 that the state knew of the hazard months before his accident but did not warn the public or complete repairs.

Dwight Otis testified that on Sept. 3, 2018, a rotten board on a bridge in the Belding Wildlife Management Area collapsed under his foot and he fell approximately 10 feet into a river, striking a boulder. He told the committee he was left temporarily paralyzed from the neck down and now lives with central cord syndrome and chronic nerve pain. “I will feel this pain 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the rest of my life,” Otis said.

Otis and his wife, Sharon Reynolds, presented documents they said show the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) identified the bridge as a safety hazard at least six months before the accident, that materials were ordered four months before the accident and that the project was designated high priority three months beforehand. Witnesses at the hearing said no warning signs, caution tape, or interim measures were put in place and that repairs were completed only after Otis’s injury.

“Three months before my accident, the state included the Belding Bridge repair on its habitat priority projects list designated it as high priority,” Reynolds said. “Yet despite this knowledge, the state failed to make repairs and did not issue any warnings.”

Otis and Reynolds urged the committee to reverse the claims commissioner’s dismissal and allow a lawsuit in superior court, arguing the recreational land-use immunity statute includes an exception for “willful or malicious” failure to guard or warn about a dangerous condition. Their counsel said the facts and internal communications meet that exception.

Committee members asked whether the case resembled other claims the commission has allowed to proceed; others at the hearing noted similar prior incidents on state trails and asked how the recreational land-use immunity has been applied. The attorney general’s office and the claims commissioner’s staff later discussed the statutory framework for recreational immunity and whether claims alleging willful or malicious conduct against state employees should be filed directly in superior court.

No committee vote was taken. The claimants asked the committee to allow the claim to proceed in court; the committee did not make a decision at the hearing.

Background and legal note

Witnesses cited the recreational land-use immunity statute (referred to in testimony as "52 dash 5 57 G" in the transcript) which generally limits owner liability for property open to the public, but has an exception for willful or malicious failure to warn or guard against dangerous conditions. Claimants said DEEP emails and procurement documents show prior awareness and procurement of materials for repair, and asked the committee to permit litigation under the exception.

Next steps

The committee will consider whether to vote on the claims-commissioner decision at a later meeting. Claimants and counsel said they will submit documentary materials to support their request to proceed to court.