Shukis v. Haddam, 122 Conn. App. 555 (2010)

Outcome: Trial Court granted summary judgment for lack of sufficient expert disclosures, Apellate Court reversed creating a new rule of law that violation of a regulatory permit constitutes negligence and nuisance per se as well as per se violation of CEPA.

Description: The plaintiff in Shukis brought suit alleging CEPA violations and negligence and nuisance claims. His property, with a two acre pond on it, was located adjacent to the building, grounds and athletic fields of the regional district high school. The 40+ acre high school facility was directly uphill from the pond. When the plaintiff purchased his property, the pond was clear and its surface was free of vegetation; it was used for swimming, fishing and other recreation. The school board then undertook the renovation and construction of athletic fields on the high school grounds. After the renovation commenced, significant amounts of sediment began to flow into the plaintiff's pond due to the failure of the school's contractors to maintain adequate erosion and sediment controls. Large quantities of storm water containing silt, rocks and bacteria flowed from the school property into the plaintiff's pond and surrounding wetlands.