199 Conn.App. 252
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiff Tina M. Carrico slipped on ice in the parking lot of a commercial property (137–139 Mill Rock Rd.), sustaining injuries. Mill Rock Leasing, LLC owned/controlled the property.
- Jones Landscaping, LLC (and two similarly named entities) had a contract/agreement with Mill Rock to perform snow/ice removal and remediation on the parking lot.
- Plaintiff pleaded counts 3–5 for negligence against Jones Landscaping, alleging inadequate snow/ice removal under that contract (not ownership or control of the premises).
- Trial court treated counts 3–5 as premises liability claims, concluded Jones did not owe a duty because it did not possess or control the property, and granted summary judgment for Jones.
- On appeal the Appellate Court reversed, holding the counts allege ordinary negligence under the contractor-duty rule (Restatement (Second) §324A as adopted in Gazo) and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts 3–5 sound in ordinary negligence (contractor liability) or premises liability | Carrico: counts plead a duty arising from Jones’s contractual snow-removal undertaking (Gazo/§324A) | Jones: gravamen is icy condition on premises; without possession/control Jones owes no duty (premises liability) | Reversed trial court: counts allege ordinary negligence under §324A; contractor may owe duty despite lacking possession/control |
| Whether Sweeney controls and bars §324A application | Carrico: Sweeney is distinguishable—here plaintiff alleged a contractual arrangement with a third party to perform services | Jones: relies on Sweeney to show pleading focuses on dangerous premises, not a contractual undertaking | Court: distinguished Sweeney; here plaintiff alleged duty based on Jones’s agreement with Mill Rock, so §324A applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Gazo v. Stamford, 255 Conn. 245 (Conn. 2001) (adopted Restatement (Second) §324A; independent contractor who undertakes snow removal can owe a direct duty to third-party pedestrian)
- Demond v. Project Service, LLC, 331 Conn. 816 (Conn. 2019) (clarified §324A liability is limited to the scope of the contractor’s contractual undertaking and must be part and parcel of the landowner’s duty)
- Sweeney v. Friends of Hammonasset, 140 Conn. App. 40 (Conn. App. 2013) (where plaintiff’s allegations concern dangerous premises and no third-party service arrangement is pleaded, §324A does not apply and possession/control governs duty)
- LaFlamme v. Dallessio, 261 Conn. 247 (Conn. 2002) (in premises liability, possession and control—not title—determine duty)
- Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation, 306 Conn. 523 (Conn. 2012) (pleadings should be construed broadly and realistically to give effect to the plaintiff’s theory and avoid hypertechnical readings)