155 Conn. App. 490
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiff Conrad Bouchard (an invitee, not an employee) fell ~6–8 feet from an elevated open-sided concrete platform into a roll-off dumpster at Deep River’s municipal transfer station and injured his back.
- Plaintiff alleged negligence under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n for failing to warn, inspect, post caution signage, or install protective measures, citing OSHA 29 C.F.R. § 1910.23(c)(1) (guardrails for open-sided platforms).
- Defendant (Town of Deep River) moved for summary judgment asserting governmental immunity because inspection/maintenance/warning duties are discretionary and OSHA duties, if any, apply only to employers and employees, not to nonemployees like Bouchard.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding the alleged duties discretionary and that OSHA did not apply or convert a discretionary duty into a ministerial one; plaintiff’s reconsideration motion was denied.
- On appeal, the court affirmed on an alternative ground: OSHA standards apply only to employees and places of employment, so the cited OSHA regulation imposed no duty to protect this nonemployee plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compliance with OSHA §1910.23(c)(1) is ministerial (thus negating governmental immunity) or discretionary | Bouchard: OSHA imposes a non‑discretionary/ministerial duty and its violation can be evidence of negligence even as to nonemployees | Deep River: Duties to inspect/maintain/warn are discretionary (immune); OSHA regulates employers/employees only and does not create duties to nonemployees | Held: OSHA imposes no duty to this nonemployee; summary judgment affirmed on that alternative ground |
| Whether OSHA §1910.23(c)(1) applied to the platform/dumpster area | Bouchard: Regulation plainly applies to open‑sided platforms and was violated | Deep River: No evidence the regulation applied to this platform; even if it did, it would not convert discretionary duties into ministerial ones | Held: Court did not need to reach factual application because OSHA does not apply to nonemployees; plaintiff not owed OSHA protection |
Key Cases Cited
- Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 (2009) (appellate court may affirm on alternative legal grounds when issue was raised and plaintiff not prejudiced)
- Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd. Partnership, 311 Conn. 301 (2014) (summary judgment standard and appellate review principles)
- Wendland v. Ridgefield Construction Services, 184 Conn. 173 (1981) (OSHA’s purpose is to impose duties on employers for workplace safety)
- Purzycki v. Fairfield, 244 Conn. 101 (1998) (resolving qualified immunity issues when facts undisputed)
- Harris v. Bradley Memorial Hospital & Health Center, Inc., 306 Conn. 304 (2012) (affirmance on alternative grounds discussion)
- Gerardi v. Bridgeport, 294 Conn. 461 (2010) (procedural limits on raising alternative grounds)
- Mortgage Electrical Registration Systems, Inc. v. Goduto, 110 Conn. App. 367 (2008) (appellate reliance on alternative grounds supported by record)