331 Conn. 816
Conn.2019Background
- Around March 9, 2012, Willis Goodale, a temporarily homeless alcoholic, lived in his Jeep at the Montville Service Plaza on I-395, consumed a large quantity of alcohol there, then drove onto I-395 and caused a fatal multivehicle crash that killed Benjamin Demond and injured others.
- The Connecticut DOT owned the service plaza and had a concession agreement with Project Service, LLC to operate and maintain it; Project Service subcontracted to Alliance and 4MM. The contract and safety plan included ‘‘no alcohol’’ and ‘‘no loitering’’ obligations and required notifying police and training subcontractors.
- Plaintiffs sued Project Service, Alliance, and 4MM, asserting negligence under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (undertaking liability) arising from the contractual no-alcohol/no-loitering obligations, and a public nuisance claim for allowing Goodale to loiter and drink.
- The trial court denied defendants’ summary judgment on negligence, instructed the jury that defendants owed a duty under § 324A as a matter of law, and a jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs. The trial court entered judgment for plaintiffs; both sides appealed.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court addressed whether a contractual undertaking to prevent on-premises alcohol/loitering creates a § 324A duty to protect off-premises motorists injured by a driver who became intoxicated on the premises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a concessionaire’s contractual undertaking to prohibit on‑premises alcohol/loitering creates a § 324A duty to protect off‑premises motorists | The contract undertaking made the defendants liable under § 324A because they should have recognized preventing on‑site drinking was necessary to protect passing motorists (foreseeable third‑party) | No: common law does not impose duty to prevent off‑premises harm from on‑site drinking; the contract did not show intent to protect highway users | Held for defendants: no § 324A duty to off‑premises motorists absent an express contractual undertaking or unambiguous intent to protect such third parties |
| Whether plaintiffs proved the § 324A(a) ‘‘increased risk’’ element | Defendants’ negligent enforcement increased risk to motorists (would have been prevented if contract enforced) | Increased‑risk requires showing plaintiffs were worse off than if no undertaking had been made; no evidence of increased risk relative to no undertaking here | Held for defendants: plaintiffs failed § 324A(a) because no evidence defendants made plaintiffs worse off than had there been no undertaking |
| Whether DOT or plaintiffs relied on defendants’ undertaking under § 324A(c) | Plaintiffs (and DOT) relied on Project Service to prevent on‑site drinking and protect highway users | No evidence DOT or motorists relied on the undertaking to protect highway travelers; contract lacks highway‑safety intent | Held for defendants: plaintiffs failed to prove reliance under § 324A(c) |
| Whether allowing Goodale to loiter/drink created a public nuisance causing the crash | Plaintiffs: the environment permitting loitering/consumption created a continuing dangerous condition and public nuisance that proximately caused the crash | Defendants: proximate cause was Goodale’s own immoderate drinking and driving; nuisance claim derivative of negligence fails | Held for defendants: nuisance summary judgment proper because sole proximate cause was Goodale’s independent act of drinking and driving |
Key Cases Cited
- Gazo v. Stamford, 255 Conn. 245 (Conn. 2001) (contractor liable under § 324A when undertaking passes through a preexisting duty to protect invitees)
- Bohan v. Last, 236 Conn. 670 (Conn. 1996) (Connecticut law declines to recognize common‑law negligence claims for sellers/possessors for off‑premises drunk‑driving harms)
- Quinnett v. Newman, 213 Conn. 343 (Conn. 1989) (sale/possession of alcohol on land does not ordinarily give rise to public nuisance or negligence for off‑premises drunk‑driving injuries)
- Nolan v. Morelli, 154 Conn. 432 (Conn. 1966) (landowner has no duty to guard against injuries occurring at unknown distances off the premises from a patron who consumed alcohol on the premises)
- Merhi v. Becker, 164 Conn. 516 (Conn. 1973) (premises owner liable for harms on premises from inadequate security when invitee harmed)
- Glanzer v. Shepard, 233 N.Y. 236 (N.Y. 1922) (foundational case for denying nonprivity defense when defendant undertakes performance and negligent performance injures third parties)
- Jain v. State, 617 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa 2000) (interpreting increased‑risk element: plaintiff must show defendant made plaintiff worse off than if defendant had not undertaken the service)