Discuss: Supremes Stick With $2.9 MDC Verdict

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

\"MDCThe Supreme Court Friday upheld a $2.9 million judgment against the Metropolitan District Commission, saying the regional water and sewer authority was not entitled to immunity from a claim filed by a bicyclist who injured herself on its property more than a decade ago.

The ruling resulting from an appeal of a lawsuit filed by Maribeth Blonski, who was biking on a trail on MDC property in 2002 when she struck a gate. The gate blocked a path in the Talcott Mountain Recreation Area.

She broke four vertebrae in her neck, her lawyer told The Courant three years ago. The MDC had decided to keep its gates closed at all times after 9/11.

A Superior Court jury awarded Blonski $2.9 million for the injuries in May of 2010

Read more here.


The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

11 thoughts on “Discuss: Supremes Stick With $2.9 MDC Verdict

  1. John R. McCommas

    I am not understanding here. The gate was closed and she ran into it. Was she not paying attention?

    Why is the Metropolitan District Commission liable for such a mishap?

    The gate was closed. She ran into the gate. What am I not getting here?

    1. Brian C. Duffy

      She was probably multitasking on public land as is her sovereign right in the 21st century. She was exercising both her 1st amendment (talking on her bluetooth…freedom of speech) and 2nd Amendment (responsible gun owner insuring the safety was on her Glock in her fanny pack…bumpy ride on the trails you know) rights. Gotta problem with that?

  2. The Conn-servative

    Shame on the supreme court for upholding this.Another case that will erode rights for everyone.

  3. Peter

    Don’t you know, we live in a no fault world where life is free of any risks or dangers one would encounter.

  4. Connecticut is Circling the Drain

    Only in America can you be paid a few million for an act of stupidity.

    1. freedom lover

      and be elected president with absolutely zero experience, even with a history of anti-American sentiment

  5. Richard

    You won’t understand this decision without looking into the decisions against the Catholic Church and how liability escalated over 15 years. This is what happens in a Democratic State. West Hartford had a skew of teacher student mishaps. The result? Beth Bye concentrated on the very dead George Reardon case. Know your low bred animals and the ins and outs of the Charitable Exception in liability code. Then spit in Beth Bye and Susan Campbell the way you would spit on a dog. Show no mercy.

  6. billy boggs

    Her first request was only to have her medical bills paid to the tune of $250,000.00. To this, the MDC refused. I wonder if old Billy “Mr Compromise” DiBella refused the request. If he did, then he should go.

    I feel a little more supportive of the woman but not fully since she injured herself through her own fault. but here is when calm heads should prevail and a settlement reached. The same goes for Paula the Fat Cook. $2000,000.00 could have settled the original case. Instead she now loses 10s of millions because no one had the good sense to settle.

    I should be so lucky.

  7. freedom lover

    “it’s her own fault” – BUT – ‘calmer heads should prevail and a settlement reached”.

    Does anyone need further clarification of the liberal mentality? No personal responsibility, no accountability, but those NOT responsible for the injury should settle.

    Readers, please feel free to sue billy boggs’ business – as well as him personally. Obviously, if he really means what he says, it will be to your financial advantage. You don’t even have to visit his premises, just sue him – make something up; calmer heads will prevail

    Are you still wondering why this state and this country are circling the drain?

  8. Greg

    It’s the “correct” ruling on the legal mechinism of limitations of liability, or in this case, the lack thereof for a quasi-municipal entity. Homeowners who open their land for “recreation” enjoy immunity ex negligence, public entities not so much.

    The woman was a moron and shouldn’t get a penny, i agree, but the law wasn’t written that way and i can’t remember if it was fixed in the legislature a year or two ago. It should have been.

Comments are closed.