BlogLine

Drug rehabilitation facilities – a public health necessity and nuisance?

7/18/24

By: Makayla C. Erazo

In Nadine Wylie, Administratrix (Estate of Keith Wylie) v. APT Foundation, Inc. (AC 46061), a Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed a trial court ruling that dismissed a public nuisance action against a drug rehabilitation facility that offered methadone treatment, finding that the facility did not create a danger or inflict injury, despite being surrounded by dangerous activity. The ultimate question asked of the Court of Appeals was: Does a drug rehabilitation facility offering methadone treatment have a natural tendency to create danger or inflict injury? The Appellate Court held it does not.

Defendant/Appellee APT Foundation, Inc. operated a drug rehabilitation facility that provided methadone treatment for opioid-dependent patients. The underlying case was brought by the family of a decedent who was fatally stabbed outside the facility while walking toward the entrance of the facility’s driveway on the public sidewalk to visit his ex-girlfriend, a facility patient. Decedent was fatally stabbed by his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend. The decedent’s estate brought a wrongful death suit against the facility under public nuisance and negligence theories. Plaintiff alleged the facility attracted criminal activity to its surrounding area by providing methadone treatment without proper security. Plaintiff alleged that in the 9-months preceding the incident, police responded to forty-two complaints of criminal activity in the area.

The facility filed a Motion to Strike claims because it did not own or control the public sidewalk where the incident occurred, the allegations did not support that operating a methadone clinic had a natural tendency to create danger or inflict injury on public property, or that the use of the property was unreasonable or unlawful. Plaintiff opposed, arguing that the facility owed decent a duty of providing a safe environment and that the facility continually attracted crime by allowing individuals to loiter near the property and partake in illegal activities, which Plaintiff argued was an unreasonable use of the property. The trial court granted Defendant’s Motion to Strike in its entirety, finding Plaintiff did not sufficiently plead a duty owed to the decedent and only had unsupported conclusory allegations to claim that the facility has a natural tendency to create danger and inflict injury upon people or property. Then, Defendant moved for Judgment.

In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Court relied on precedent that found that parking lots do not have a natural tendency to create danger or inflict injury. The Court held that Plaintiff’s Complaint did not allege facts warranting a deviation from precedent, and the facility did not have a natural tendency to create danger or inflict injury; Plaintiff failed to plead an essential element of the public nuisance claim. The Court added that while the conditions in the area were not pleasant and may be dangerous, that is insufficient for these types of claims. The premises did not possess the evident and innate dangerous qualities like a diving board placed over shallow and murky water, an unattended fire at a public town dump, or contaminants leaking from a landfill, which would be appropriate circumstances to bring public nuisance claims. To prevail, the condition must be created by and be a natural result of a condition on the premises. Further, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations of prior incidents and police responses did not establish that the police responses were a result of the operation of the facility versus the actions of individuals on the property.

This holding is important for drug rehabilitation facilities and similar operations that are sued for injuries that occur near the facility or acts that involve their clients or visitors. It is important for defense counsel to be aware of this critical precedent, which offers a solid defense.

For more information, please contact Makayla C. Erazo at makayla.erazo@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.