Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Munnv.HotchkissSch.
Inthe
UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals
FortheSecondCircuit
________
AUGUSTTERM,2014
ARGUED:MAY4,2015
DECIDED:AUGUST3,2015
No.142410cv
ORSOND.MUNN,III,ASPARENT&NEXTFRIENDOFC.M.&IND.,CHRISTINE
MUNN,ASPARENT&NEXTFRIENDOFC.M.&IND.,CARAL.MUNN,
PlaintiffsAppellees,
v.
THEHOTCHKISSSCHOOL,
DefendantAppellant.
________
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt
fortheDistrictofConnecticut.
No.09cv919StefanR.Underhill,Judge.
________
Before:WALKER,LYNCH,andLOHIER,CircuitJudges.
________
Cara Munn and her parents brought suit against the Hotchkiss
awarded the Munns $41.5 million in damages, $31.5 of which were non
economic damages. On appeal, the school argues that it did not have a
legaldutytowarnaboutorprotectagainsttickborneencephalitisandthat
the jury award is excessive. Although we agree with the plaintiffs that
therewassufficientevidenceforajurytofindMunnsillnessforeseeable,
repercussionsonfuturenegligencecasesinConnecticut,andexistingcase
Accordingly,wecertifytwoquestionstotheConnecticutSupremeCourt:
(1)DoesConnecticutpublicpolicysupportimposingadutyonaschoolto
whenitorganizesatripabroad?(2)Ifso,doesanawardofapproximately
$41.5 million in favor of the plaintiffs, $31.5 million of which are non
economicdamages,warrantremittitur?
________
2
No.142410cv
JOHNM.WALKER,JR.,CircuitJudge:
Cara Munn and her parents brought suit against the Hotchkiss
awarded the Munns $41.5 million in damages, $31.5 of which were non
economic damages. On appeal, the school argues that it did not have a
legaldutytowarnaboutorprotectagainsttickborneencephalitisandthat
the jury award is excessive. Although we agree with the plaintiffs that
therewassufficientevidenceforajurytofindMunnsillnessforeseeable,
repercussionsonfuturenegligencecasesinConnecticut,andexistingcase
Accordingly,wecertifytwoquestionstotheConnecticutSupremeCourt:
(1)DoesConnecticutpublicpolicysupportimposingadutyonaschoolto
whenitorganizesatripabroad?(2)Ifso,doesanawardofapproximately
$41.5 million in favor of the plaintiffs, $31.5 million of which are non
economicdamages,warrantremittitur?
3
No.142410cv
BACKGROUND
Werecitethefactsinthelightmostfavorabletotheplaintiffsinlight
ofthejuryverdictintheirfavor.SeeJacquesv.DiMarzio,Inc.,386F.3d192,
195(2dCir.2004).
A. TheTriptoChina
yearoldstudentattheHotchkissSchool(Hotchkiss),aprivateboarding
landmarks.
Director, served as the trip leader. In preparation for the trip, in March
2007,shesentparentsapacketoutliningactivitiesandasetoflegalforms
for the participants and parents to waive legal claims against the school.
ThepacketmentionedavisittoMountPanshan,referredtobytheparties
asMt.Pan.Theschoolalsosentmedicaladviceforthetrip,includinga
and a note that the schools infirmary could serve as a travel clinic.
Special Appx 16. The webpage linkedto the CDCs Central America site
insteadofitsChinasite,however,andtheinfirmarywasunabletoprovide
independentmedicaladvice.Finally,theschoolsentanitinerary,packing
4
No.142410cv
bugsprayinitsmiscellaneouscategory,butincludednowarningabout
mentioned.
OnJune23,2007,whileonthetrip,thestudentswentforaweekend
excursiontotheGreatWallandtoMt.Pan.Mt.Panisaforestedmountain.
Again,nowarningstowearbugsprayweregiven.TripleaderYulefther
bugsprayonthebus.Afterhikingtothetopofthemountain,agroupof
three or four students, including Munn, decided to hike down, while the
others took a cable car. Yu pointed them to the path and said that she
would wait for them at the bottom. Munn testified that the students
decidedtoleavethepavedpathandfollownarrowdirttrailsinstead.The
studentsgotlostandwalkedamongtreesandthroughbrush.
Munn testified at trial that after the trip to Mt. Pan she had many
insect bites and an itchy welt on her left arm. Ten days later, she awoke
rapidlyandshewastakentoalocalhospital.Munnwasthentransferred
toaBeijinghospitalandherparentscamefromtheUnitedStates.Severely
ill and partially paralyzed, Munn was soon airlifted back to New York.
infectiousdiseasewhichaffectsthecentralnervoussystem.
Because of her illness, Munn lost the ability to speak. At trial, she
testified through a machine into which she typed her answers. She has
difficultycontrollingherfacialmuscles,causinghertodrool.Hermother
5
No.142410cv
testified about Munns frustration with her inability to speak and stated
thatMunnexperiencesalotofrejection.JointAppx119192.Munnhas
life. She finished high school and attended Trinity College. She can play
sports,stilltravels,andhasheldsummerinternships.
B. ProceduralHistory
On June 11, 2009, Munn and her parents filed this diversity action
carelesssupervisionofthetripcausedherillness.
Intheirlawsuit,theMunnsallegedthatHotchkisswasnegligentin
1)failingtowarntheMunnsabouttherisksofviralencephalitis;2)failing
toprovideforproperprotectiveclothing,insectrepellent,orvaccinations;
failuretoprotect.
Hotchkissassertedanumberofaffirmativedefenses,includingthat
theMunnsassumedtheriskbysigningtheschoolsAgreement,Waiver,
andReleaseofLiability.However,thedistrictcourt(StefanR.Underhill,
6
No.142410cv
J.)excludedthewaiver,findingboththatitslanguagewasambiguousand
thatitwasagainstpublicpolicyunderConnecticutlaw.
Attrial,theplaintiffsofferedtwoexperts,StuartRose,anexperton
travelmedicine,andPeterTarlow,anexpertontourismriskmanagement
whotestifiedaboutstandardsofcare.Hotchkissalsoofferedtwoexperts,
profferedasanexpertonstandardsofcarefollowedbysimilarlysituated
schools.Thedistrictcourt,however,excludedFluhartystestimonyafterit
wasgiven,findingthathehadfabricatedandmisrepresentedsupportfor
histestimony.
Attheconclusionoftheplaintiffscase,Hotchkisssoughtadirected
verdict under Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing
thatMunncontributedtoherowninjuriesandthattheriskofcontracting
TBEwasunforeseeable.Thedistrictcourtdeniedthatmotion.
OnMarch27,2013,afterasevendaytrial,thejuryfoundHotchkiss
solely liable. Specifically, the jury found that Hotchkiss was negligent in
failingtoensurethatshetookprotectivemeasures.Thejuryalsofoundno
contributorynegligenceonthepartofMunn.Itawarded$10.25millionin
damages. Hotchkiss renewed its Rule 50 motion and filed a motion for a
newtrialunderRule59.
7
No.142410cv
Pursuanttothepartiesstipulation,itreducedthemonetaryawardbythe
amount that the Munns had collected from collateral sources. The total
awardagainstHotchkissisnowapproximately$41.5million.
DISCUSSION
Hotchkissarguesonappealthatitdidnothavealegaldutytowarn
aboutorprotectagainsttickborneencephalitisandthatthe$41.5million
jury award is excessive. The school asserts that the jury verdict is not
publicpolicytoimposeadutytowarnaboutorprotectagainstadisease
asremoteastickborneencephalitis.1
Becausethiscaseimplicatescomplexandunresolvedissuesofstate
lawandpublicpolicy,wecertifytwoquestionsoflawtotheConnecticut
SupremeCourt:(1)DoesConnecticutpublicpolicysupporttheimposition
ofadutyonaschooltowarnaboutorprotectagainsttheriskofaserious
millionofwhicharenoneconomicdamages,warrantremittitur?
1Hotchkissraisesseveralotherargumentsinitsappealthatwedonotreach
here because the questions we certify could be outcome determinative. The
schoolassertsthatthejurychargewasmisleading,thatthedistrictcourtabused
itsdiscretioninexcludingFluhartystestimonywhileatthesametimeadmitting
thetestimonyoftheplaintiffsexperts,thattherewasinsufficientevidencethat
Munn was bitten on Mt. Pan, and that the district court erred in excluding the
releaseofclaims.
8
No.142410cv
I. Foreseeability
Hotchkissfirstarguesthattherewasinsufficientevidencetosupport
the jury verdict that it was foreseeable Munn would contract a serious
insectborneillnessonthetriptoChina.Wedisagree.Uponreviewofthe
record,wefindthattheplaintiffspresentedsufficientevidenceattrialthat
Hotchkissshouldhaveknownoftheriskofseriousinsectbornediseases.
absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jurys findings could
only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or such an
reasonable and fair minded men could not arrive at a verdict against the
appellant. Gronowski v. Spencer, 424 F.3d 285, 292 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal
quotationmarksandalterationsomitted).Inaddition,assessmentsofthe
weightoftheevidenceorthecredibilityofwitnessesareforthejuryand
bothoftheseissues.Maldonadov.Scully,86F.3d32,35(2dCir.1996).
UnderConnecticutnegligencelaw,alegaldutyrequiresthat(1)an
ordinarypersoninthedefendantsposition,knowingwhatthedefendant
knew or should have known, would anticipate that harm of the general
natureofthatsufferedwaslikelytoresult,and(2)adeterminationbythe
courtonthebasisofapublicpolicyanalysis,ofwhetherthedefendants
9
No.142410cv
ConnecticutSupremeCourtreiteratedthataslongasharmofthegeneral
eventhoughthemannerinwhichtheaccidenthappensisunusual,bizarre
or unforeseeable. Ruiz v. Victory Props., LLC, 315 Conn. 320, 335 (2015)
(internalquotationmarksandalterationomitted).
ConnecticutSupremeCourtheldthatitcouldbeforeseeablethatbackyard
debrisinanapartmentbuildingwouldleadtoinjurywhenchildrenused
emphasizedthatitscaseshaveattemptedtosafeguardchildrenoftender
yearsfromtheirpropensitytodisregarddangerousconditions.Id.at333
yearsolderthanthechildreninRuiz,thedecisioncanbereadtoindicate
relatestochildren.
jurysverdictthatMunnsillnesswasforeseeable.Hotchkissintroduceda
northeastern China and in South Korea. Joint Appx 1892. The evidence
10
No.142410cv
Freedman,testifiedthattheAugust1,2007advisorywouldputaschoolon
notice that there was a risk of TBE in northeastern China. Although the
August 1, 2007 advisory was dated more than one month after Munns
Thompson,testifiedthathehadseenawarningaboutTBEonthe CDCs
Chinapagebeforethetrip.Ondirectexamination,heansweredyeswhen
encephalitisinNortheastChinaatthetimeofthistrip,JointAppx1037,
preparation for the trip, Joint Appx 1040. In addition, other travel
websiteswarnedoftickborneencephalitisinEastAsia,andspecificallyin
China.
Hotchkiss argues on appeal that the jury could not have found the
the advisory was released after the trip. Hotchkiss, which introduced the
advisoryasadefensetrialexhibitandfromwhichitsownwitnesstestified
astotrippreparationawareness,nowattemptstodiscredititsownexhibit.
The school instead asks us to consider an earlier advisory dated May 23,
11
No.142410cv
2007, which does not mention TBE. That advisory, however, was not
introducedattrialandisnotpartoftherecord.Wewillnotconsidernew
evidenceabsentextraordinarycircumstancesandnosuchcircumstances
are present here. Intl Bus. Machines Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37, 45 (2d
Cir. 1975) (per curiam). Furthermore, while the August 1, 2007 advisory
postdatesthetrip,itispossiblethatasimilaradvisorywasonthewebsite
advisory.Neitherpartypresentedevidenceaboutwhatwaspostedonthe
CDCwebsitewhenthetripactuallyoccurred,andwewillnotdisturbthe
foreseeability.
II. PublicPolicy
A. Duty
Hotchkissalsoarguesonappealthatimposingalegaldutytowarn
argumentsonbothsides.Inthesecircumstances,ratherthanattemptingto
certifythequestiontotheConnecticutSupremeCourt.
haswaivedthisargumentbynotraisingitinitsRule50motion.Hotchkiss
12
No.142410cv
hasnotwaiveditspublicpolicyargumentbecauseitraisedtheargument
initsmotionforsummaryjudgmentanditisaquestionoflawsolelyfor
thecourt.Wehavepreviouslystatedthatwherethetrialcourtsdenialof
evidence,butonaquestionoflaw,therationalebehindRule50doesnot
apply, and the need for such an objection [through a Rule 50 motion] is
absent.Rothsteinv.Carriere,373F.3d275,284(2dCir.2004).Thuswefind
thatthisargumentwasnotwaived.
1. TheApplicableLaw
implicatesquestionsofpublicpolicy.TheConnecticutSupremeCourthas
stated:
Murillov.SeymourAmbulanceAssn,Inc.,264Conn.474,47980(2003)
(internalquotationmarksandalterationsomitted).
13
No.142410cv
findingthatpublicpolicydidnotsupporttheimpositionofadutyonthe
tortfeasor.InJaworskiv.Kiernan,241Conn.399,409(1997),theConnecticut
negligence.Id.AndinLodgev.ArettSalesCorp.,246Conn.563,577(1998),
theConnecticutSupremeCourtoverturnedajuryverdictagainstanalarm
companyforinjuriesincurredbyfirefightersinabrakefailurewhenthey
were responding to a false alarm. The court noted, [w]e focus our
than strictly upon the foreseeability of the plaintiffs harm. Id. at 57677;
see also RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 38788 (1994)
attenuated).
Morerecently,inMercierv.GreenwichAcad.,Inc.,No.13CV4(JCH),
2013WL3874511,at*5(D.Conn.July25,2013),afederaljudgeapplying
player was injured during a basketball game. The court reasoned that
14
No.142410cv
createsafetyrisks.Id.at*4(quotingJaworski,241Conn.at408).Holding
thecoachresponsible,thecourtconcluded,wouldchillthecoachsroleof
encouragingcompetitioninsports.Id.at*5.
Cases like Jaworski and Mercier indicate that courts place a high
valueonrecreationalactivitiesforchildren,eveniftheysometimescreate
safety concerns. Although the present case does not involve competitive
thebenefitsofeducationaltripsforchildren.
activityunderreview;(2)thepublicpolicyofencouragingparticipationin
theactivity,whileweighingthesafetyoftheparticipants;(3)theavoidance
ofincreasedlitigation;and(4)thedecisionsofotherjurisdictions.Monkv.
Temple George Assocs., LLC, 273 Conn. 108, 118 (2005) (internal quotation
marksomitted).Thefourpublicpolicyfactorsdonotpointtoanobvious
side.
generalityappliedtodescribetheeventsthatoccurredinthiscase.Parents
15
No.142410cv
expect a school to warn about or protect against some of the risks of the
outside of their comfort zones and of the organizers control. Such trips
thus naturally entail a certain level of risk. Here, the risk of contracting
expectaschooltowarnaboutorprotectagainstdangers,includingserious
contractTBE.
posingsubstantialhealthandsafetyrisks,offerimportantbenefitstotheir
exchangesarewrittenintoConnecticutstatutorylaw.ConnecticutGeneral
StatuteSection1027(a)states:
thecareandprotectionofschoolsonthesetrips,isanimportantconcern.
16
No.142410cv
Minorsonsuchtripsareinthecustodyoftheorganizationsleadingthem,
andthehealthandsafetyofthechildrenmusthaveabearingonhowthese
tripsareconducted.2
areaofchildsafety,especiallyinlightofthesubstantialdamagesawarded
totheseplaintiffs.Iftheawardstands,itwouldsetanimportantprecedent
for negligence cases arising from educational trips. In fact, the effects of
this case are already manifest. Munns attorney recently brought another
lawsuitinwhichtheplaintiffseeksthesamedamageawardforcontracting
LymediseaseataYMCAcamp.Horowitzv.YMCACampMohawk,Inc.,13
cv1458(D.Conn.2013).Thiscaseislikelytoencouragefuturevictimsof
injuriessuchasbefellMunn.SeeMonk,273Conn.at120.
Fourth,nocaseisexactlyanalogoustothisone,butcourtsinseveral
NewYork,40A.D.3d572,574(N.Y.App.Div.2007),thecourtfoundthata
Connecticutlegislaturehasnot,asatleastoneotherstatehas,enactedastatutory
immunityforschooltrips.SeeCal.Educ.Code35330(d).
17
No.142410cv
schooldidnotbreachadutyofsupervisionwhereachildwasinjuredona
hay ride. The court noted that previous hay rides had occurred without
incident and that the school had no knowledge or notice that [the] hay
ridewouldbehazardous.Id.InManchav.FieldMuseumofNaturalHistory,
5Ill.App.3d699,702(1972),thecourtdeclinedtoimposeadutywherea
significantburdenofsupervisionontheschool.Id.Itstated:
Ateachercannotberequiredtowatchthestudentsatalltimes
whileinschool,onthegrounds,orengagedinschoolrelated
activity. If the law imposed such burdens it would well
discourageschoolsandteachersfromaffordingopportunities
tochildrentoenjoythemanyextracurricularactivities.Ithas
long been recognized that something other than classroom
teaching is needed for a sound education. Learning is not
confinedtobooks.
extracurricularactivitiesbylimitingthedutiesofschoolstowarnaboutor
protectagainstunlikelyorunusualevents.Atthesametime,therearealso
instanceswherecourtshavefoundthatschoolsoweadutyinthecontext
ofextracurricularactivities.See,e.g.,CityofCedarFallsv.CedarFallsCmty.
Sch. Dist., 617 N.W.2d 11, 1618 (Iowa 2000) (school district liable for
during field trip); Travis v. Bohannon, 128 Wash. App. 231, 239 (2005)
18
No.142410cv
(schooldistrictoweddutyofcaretohighschoolstudentsparticipatingin
offcampusWorkday).
negligencecases,weareunabletodeterminewhetherConnecticutpublic
policysupportsimposingadutytowarnorprotectinthiscase.Although
public policy may favor placing limits on schools legal duties in the
contextofschooltripsbecauseoftheireducationalbenefits,nocasehasyet
addressedthisprecisequestionandnocaseisclosetothefactsofthiscase.
2. Certification
thequestionofpublicpolicyinnegligencecases,wethinkitbesttoletthe
policysupportsimposingalegaldutyonHotchkiss.
OurcourtrulesandConnecticutlawenableustocertifyaquestion
totheSupremeCourtofConnecticutiftheanswermaybedeterminative
199b(d); see 2d Cir. Local R.27.2; see also Caruso v. Siemens Bus. Commcns
Sys., Inc.,392 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2004) (certifying question where no
19
No.142410cv
opportunity to define state law. Gutierrez v. Smith, 702 F.3d 103, 116 (2d
Cir.2012).Wehavelongrecognizedthatstatecourtsshouldbeaccorded
the first opportunity to decide significant issues of state law through the
certificationprocess,andthat,especiallywheretheissuesimplicate[]the
weighingofpolicyconcerns,principlesofcomityandfederalismstrongly
supportcertification.Parrotv.GuardianLifeIns.Co.ofAm.,338F.3d140,
144(2dCir.2003),certifiedquestionanswered,273Conn.12(2005).
First,asdiscussedabove,Connecticutcaselawprovideslimitedguidance
owedadutyofcareisdeterminativeinthiscase.Second,thescopeofduty
by state, rather than federal, courts. Id. at 145 (internal quotation marks
omitted);seealsoIzzarelliv.R.J.ReynoldsTobaccoCo.,731F.3d164,169(2d
Cir.2013)(certifyingtoConnecticutSupremeCourtwherequestionisone
of state law and is vigorously argued on both sides). Third and most
importantly,thiscaseislikelytohaverepercussionsbeyondthisparticular
factpatternasitimplicatesbroadquestionsofConnecticutpublicpolicy.
Definingthescopeofaschoolsdutywhenitleadsaninternational
Connecticut,whichishometomanyprivateandpublicschools.Although
costbenefit analysis in most cases assumes that all interested parties are
representedinthecase,thisisnotsohere.Thesocietalimpactoffindinga
20
No.142410cv
dutyhereextendsfarbeyondHotchkiss.ToimposeadutyonConnecticut
encephalitismightdiscouragefieldtripsthatserveimportanteducational
roles. See generally Philip K. Howard, The Collapse of the Common Good
require that participants bear the risks of unlikely injuries and illnesses
suchastheonethatoccurredinthiscasesothatinstitutionscancontinue
tooffertheseactivities.
Ontheotherhand,imposingadutyofreasonablecareonHotchkiss
may not have the effect of increasing litigation. If schools take steps to
decrease.Alternatively,thoseactionspremisedonanabsolutedemandto
precautions,likelywillbedismissedintheabsenceofnegligence.Monk,
273 Conn. at 120. Balancing these factors is a task primarily for state
decisionmakersratherthanfederalcourts.
3 For more discussion of the risk that excessive tort liability might deter
sociallybeneficial activities,seeSteven Shavell,Foundationsof Economic Analysis
ofLaw177206(2004).
21
No.142410cv
WeconcludethatcertificationwouldallowConnecticuttocarefully
considerandweighthepolicyconcernsatplayinthiscaseandtoshapeits
ownstatenegligencelawastotheresponsibilitiesofschoolsonfieldtrips.
B. Remittitur
Thiscaseisalsounusualbecauseofthelargeawardgrantedtothe
damagesalsoleadustocertifytheissueofremittiturtotheSupremeCourt
ofConnecticut.
diversity case, it also governs the excessiveness of the verdict and the
questionofremittitur.SeeGasperiniv.Ctr.forHumanities,Inc.,518U.S.415,
42931(1996).Todeterminewhethertograntremittitur,atrialcourtmust
evaluatewhetherthejurysawardfallssomewherewithinthenecessarily
shocksthesenseofjusticeastocompeltheconclusionthatthejury[was]
influencedbypartiality,prejudice,mistakeorcorruption.Birgelv.Heintz,
whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to set
557(1989).
InChampagne,theConnecticutSupremeCourtorderedremittituron
a$320,000lossofconsortiumawardforawifewhosehusbandbecamesick
22
No.142410cv
appellate review in this area, the court concluded that the award was
concludedthata$50,000awardwasexcessiveforaplaintiffwhosuffered
emotionaldistressbecausehewastemporarilyundertheimpressionthat
hehadnomedicalcoverage.205Conn.166,167(1987).Again,thecourt
foundthattheevidencedidnotsupporttheaward,anditnotedthatthe
jury . . . could not reasonably have found that the plaintiff is entitled to
recover $50,000. Id. at 176. These two cases indicate that Connecticut
appellate courts can overturn jury awards or order remittitur where the
evidencedoesnotsupportthesizeorscopeofthejurysdamagesaward.
large jury awards for disastrous injuries. See, e.g., Mather v. Griffin Hosp.,
207 Conn. 125 (1988) ($9 millionroughly $18 million adjusted for
($22.7millionawardforinjurythatseveredplaintiffsspinalcord),revdon
othergrounds,286Conn.563(2008);seealsoPouliotv.PaulArpinVanLines,
Inc.,235F.R.D.537(D.Conn.2006)($20millionnoneconomicdamagesfor
permanentimpairmentof92%ofplaintiffsbody,causingplaintiffmental
anguishanddepression).
23
No.142410cv
injuries that alter her everyday life. The parties do not debate that the
disease has limited Munns ability to express herself and to control her
and her loss of enjoyment. Hotchkisss attorney did not discuss non
economicdamagesatallwhenshespoketothejury.Theevidenceattrial
and the attorney summations thus offer little basis on which to explain
Althoughnoneconomicdamagesarealwaysabstractpainandsuffering
because of the size of the noneconomic damages, which are more than
threetimestheeconomicdamages,andthelackofdiscussionintherecord
aboutnoneconomicdamages.
effectsofthelawsuitonorganizationsofferingeducationaltrips.The$41.5
24
No.142410cv
organizationshostingthesetrips.Althoughinsurancemaycoveraportion
significantlyincreasedpremiums.Thedamagesmightdiscourageschools
and other organizations from offering such trips for fear that they will
sufferacripplinglawsuit.
statefield.Finally,thesizeofthisawardmakesitlikelythatitwillhave
repercussions far beyond this case and affect the whole industry of
statepublicpolicyoneducationaltrips.
CONCLUSION
reach the other issues raised in this appeal because the Connecticut
determinative.
Forthereasonsstatedabove,wecertifytwoquestionsoflawtothe
25
No.142410cv
imposingadutyonaschooltowarnaboutorprotectagainsttheriskofa
seriousinsectbornediseasewhenitorganizesatripabroad?(2)Ifso,does
millionofwhicharenoneconomicdamages,warrantremittitur?
TheConnecticutSupremeCourtmaymodifythesetwoquestionsas
it sees fit and, should it choose, may direct the parties to address other
questions it deems relevant. This panel retains jurisdiction over this case
andwilldecideanyremainingissuesoncetheConnecticutSupremeCourt
hasruled.
ItisthereforeORDEREDthattheClerkofthiscourttransmittothe
together with this decision and a complete set of the briefs, appendices,
andrecordfiledinthiscourtbytheparties.
26