PLAINFIELD ― The state Supreme Court is allowing the town of Plainfield to bring other defendants into a civil lawsuit that alleges a child’s 2016 pool drowning death was the fault of the municipality.

The high court in a July 19 published opinion ruled in favor of the town’s lawyers who sought to add the owners of the property where the pool was installed and tenants who applied for its construction as defendants in the case under an “apportionment” request.

In June 2018, Malisa Costanzo, formerly of 86 Glebas Road, sued the town and two building officials – Robert Kerr and D. Kyle Collins – two years after her daughter drowned in an above-ground pool on the property she was renting.

Costanzo alleges the town employees issued a building permit for construction of the 18-foot pool in 2013 without checking if a pool alarm and self-closing/latching gate were installed - as required by state statute – and did not conduct any follow-up inspections to ensure the pool met state building codes.

“As a result and proximate cause, Isabella Costanzo suffered from drowning, with pain, suffering, mental and emotional anguish and distress and, ultimately death,” according to an amended complaint filed by the Law Firm of Stephen M. Reck and Scott D. Camassar, LLC.

CT courtsSuspects in fatal northeastern Connecticut assault cases now face murder charges

Costanzo also filed bystander emotional distress claims on behalf of her surviving children who she said witnessed the failed attempts to revive their sibling. She is seeking $15,000 or more in damages.

The town’s lawyers argue the child’s drowning could be attributed to the negligence of property owners, Jeanna and Bruce Prink, and the former tenants who installed the pool, neither whom were named in the lawsuit.

The defendants contend the Prinks failed to schedule a pool inspection with the town; neglected to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the pool; and did not prevent their tenants from using the pool despite knowing several young children would be living on the property.

The town’s lawyers, Williams Walsh & O’Connor, LLC, further allege the property’s former tenants, Eric and Merissa Guerin, prepared and submitted an application for construction of the pool in 2013 and were advised the pool needed a safety gate, as well as a post-construction inspection.

“The defendants alleged that the Guerins failed to notify them that that pool had been constructed and thus an inspection was needed,” the town’s lawyers state in their arguments as reasons why both the Prinks and Guerins could be liable for a proportionate share of any damages awarded.

The suit continued in Putnam Superior Court through March 2019 when Judge Leeland Cole-Chu denied the defendant’s apportionment motion on statutory grounds. That ruling was appealed to the state’s Appellate Court which reversed Cole-Chu’s decision based on a state law that allows defendants to bring other parties into such negligence lawsuits.

Norwich looks to replace aging schoolsLeaky ceilings and cramped offices: Here's why Norwich wants to buy four new schools

The state Supreme Court final judgment reiterates the appeals’ court finding that Cole-Chu “improperly sustained” objections to bringing in additional defendants.

There is not yet a new date listed for when the lawsuit will proceed in Putnam court.

John Penney can be reached at jpenney@norwichbulletin.com or at (860) 857-6965.