The Connecticut Appellate Court has ruled in favor of the Branford Board of Education and its employees in a negligence case involving a high school student who was assaulted. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment, stating that the defendants were entitled to governmental immunity. This ruling affects students and school officials in Connecticut, as it clarifies the limits of liability for schools in negligence claims.

The case, known as Charbono v. Board of Education (AC48188), involved Emma Charbono, a sophomore at Branford High School, who claimed she was attacked by another student in a gymnasium. Charbono alleged that the lack of supervision during the incident violated school policy and was a direct cause of her injuries. The court's decision emphasizes the discretion that school officials have in managing student supervision.

Emma Charbono filed her complaint on November 9, 2021, after an incident on November 6, 2019, where she was allegedly struck over twenty-five times by another student, referred to as J. Charbono claimed that the school failed to provide adequate supervision, which she believed was a violation of the Board of Education's policy regarding student safety. The defendants in the case included the town of Branford, the Board of Education, and three school employees: Lee Panagoulias, the principal; Stephanie Byrd, the assistant principal; and Hamlet Hernandez, the superintendent.

The dispute centered on whether the defendants could be held liable for negligence given the circumstances of the incident. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that they were entitled to governmental immunity under Connecticut General Statutes § 52-557n. This statute protects municipalities and their employees from liability for discretionary acts performed in their official capacity.

The court's ruling highlighted that the school policy in question did not create a ministerial duty for the defendants. The court found that the policy did not specify the manner or scope of supervision required during school activities. Judge Seeley, writing for the court, stated, "the policy did not create a ministerial duty of supervision and the defendants’ alleged acts or omissions were discretionary in nature." This ruling underscores the legal distinction between discretionary and ministerial duties in the context of school supervision.

The court also addressed the plaintiff's argument that the absence of adult supervision constituted a violation of the policy. However, the court concluded that the language of the policy allowed for discretion in how supervision was carried out. The court noted that the policy's general requirement for supervision did not mandate that an adult be physically present at all times during school activities.

The ruling has significant implications for schools and students in Connecticut. It clarifies that school officials are generally protected from liability in negligence claims when their actions involve discretion. This decision may discourage future claims against school districts based on similar circumstances, as it reinforces the principle of governmental immunity in the context of educational settings.

Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether Emma Charbono will appeal the decision to a higher court. The court's ruling effectively closes the case at the appellate level, but the possibility of further legal action exists. No related cases were mentioned in the court filing, but the outcome of this case may influence future negligence claims involving school supervision and student safety.