Case Background
A long-running lawsuit arose from a winter mishap in Glastonbury, Connecticut, concluded when a jury sided with the Town of Glastonbury and its snowplow operator, Eric W. Gill. The decision arrived on October 10, 2025, culminating a case that had begun over three years earlier.
The incident at the heart of the dispute happened on the evening of February 1, 2021, when Plaintiff Gary Gellner was operating a snow blower on his own driveway at 124 Bayberry Road. The Plaintiff alleged that at approximately 7:00 PM, a Town of Glastonbury snowplow, driven by employee Eric Gill, suddenly struck him.
According to the complaint, Mr. Gill, driving a large 2013 International snowplow, attempted to travel northbound on Bayberry Road but could not climb the snow-covered hill. The Plaintiff asserted that Gill then negligently and unsafely backed the heavy vehicle down the road, colliding with Mr. Gellner before leaving the scene of the accident, reportedly unaware he had struck the homeowner. Mr. Gellner subsequently filed the lawsuit, accusing both the driver and the municipality of carelessness.
Cause
The Plaintiff’s entire case rested on the accusation that the accident occurred as a direct result of Eric Gill’s negligence and carelessness. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserted Gill operated the snowplow without reasonable regard for the conditions, drove the vehicle unsafely, failed to maintain proper control, and neglected to keep a proper lookout while operating the vehicle in reverse.
Injury
Following the collision, Mr. Gellner sustained multiple injuries across the upper body. The complaint specifically cited injuries to his neck, both shoulders, both arms, chest, and back. The lawsuit sought to recover costs and compensation for the physical trauma and its lasting effects.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff, Gary Gellner, had sought judgment against all Defendants—Eric W. Gill, individually, and the Town of Glastonbury. He demanded compensation, or special damages, for all of his hospital, medical, and incidental expenses, as well as recovery for the loss of earnings. The complaint also sought general damages to compensate him for pain, suffering, and the long-term impact of his injuries. The total financial damages sought remained unspecified in the initial pleadings, only that they were “according to proof” presented at trial.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The Defendants, Eric W. Gill and the Town of Glastonbury, forcefully rejected the Plaintiff’s claims from the start. While they conceded that Eric Gill was an employee driving a snowplow for the Town on that date, they denied every allegation of negligence or carelessness leveled against Gill. They maintained they lacked sufficient information about the actual specifics of the incident and demanded the Plaintiff prove his entire case.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Gary Gellner
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): William B. Wynne
· Experts for Plaintiff: Michael E. Shanok | Scott W. Organ | Jeremy E. Swenson
Defendant(s): Eric W. Gill | the Town of Glastonbury
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Michael R. Oleyer
· Experts for Defendant: James Spak
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Mr. Gellner’s legal team built its case on the claim that the driver, Eric Gill, failed to follow established safety protocols. His attorney argued that the driver’s unsafe decision to back a large snowplow down a snow-covered incline near a residential driveway, ultimately striking and injuring the Plaintiff, constituted a clear and direct breach of his duty of care.
Defense
The defense team’s primary strategy involved a blanket denial of the negligence claims, forcing the Plaintiff to meet a high burden of proof on the facts of the accident. More critically, the Town of Glastonbury and Mr. Gill advanced the Special Defense of Governmental Immunity. This defense, a powerful shield for municipalities and their employees, claimed that the Defendants were immune from liability under common law and Connecticut General Statute § 52-557n. This special defense argued that the circumstances of the incident fell within legal protections afforded to governmental operations, which, if successful, protected the Town from paying any damages regardless of whether the driver acted negligently.
Jury Verdict
After hearing the testimony and arguments, the jury delivered its final decision on October 10, 2025. The jury completely rejected the Plaintiff's claims of negligence against both the driver and the municipality.
The official verdict form confirmed that the six-person panel found in favor of the Defendants, Eric W. Gill and the Town of Glastonbury, against the Plaintiff, Gary Gellner. As the jury found no liability on the part of the Defendants, the sections for economic damages, non-economic damages, and a final award remained blank.
The verdict marked the end of a protracted legal battle, confirming that the Town of Glastonbury and its employee walked away without any financial liability in the case.
