McDermott v. State
145 Conn. App. 75
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Connecticut Department of Transportation employees removed a 55-foot sugar maple in Cromwell, marking the site with two traffic cones on the sidewalk.
- The cones remained in place and were not moved during the tree removal operation.
- A bystander, Madeline McDermott, approached the site and stood about 55 feet from the tree while workers removed limbs and chunks.
- A trunk segment was cut and pulled toward the bystanders; a log struck McDermott’s forehead, causing fatal injuries after he fell on the sidewalk.
- The trial court bifurcated liability and damages, found the state liable for wrongful death, and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
- The appellate court reversed, concluding the trial court misdefined the duty of care and that causation/proximate cause did not establish liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of the duty of care | McDermott argues the state owed a duty to bystanders to stay outside the coned area and to ensure safety beyond industry norms. | Connecticut contends the duty was to keep the public at a reasonably safe distance, not to remove bystanders from the cone area. | Duty limited to reasonable safety distance; no duty to remove McDermott beyond cones. |
| Proximate cause | The state’s breach (failing to remove McDermott from the coned area) proximately caused his death. | Proximate cause not shown because the log’s trajectory and unforeseeable nature break the causal chain. | Proximate cause not established; state not liable. |
| Judicial treatment of industry standards | Industry standards (two tree lengths) inform a reasonable safety standard for bystanders. | Industry standards are not conclusive and do not create strict liability for the public; duties depend on foreseeability and policy. | Industry standard admissible but not controlling; duty not broadened to strict liability within the coned area. |
Key Cases Cited
- LePage v. Horne, 262 Conn. 116 (2002) (duty and scope in negligence; foreseeability and public policy factors)
- Mazurek v. Great American Ins. Co., 284 Conn. 16 (2007) (two-step test for duty: existence and scope)
- Stewart v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 234 Conn. 697 (1995) (proximate cause; substantial factor standard)
- Roy v. Friedman Equipment Co., 147 Conn. 121 (1960) (foreseeability limits on liability; not all hazards require precautions)
- Malloy v. Colchester, 85 Conn. App. 627 (2004) (proximate cause as a factual question; appellate review standards)
- Coburn v. Lenox Homes, Inc., 186 Conn. 370 (1982) (custom in trade admissible but not conclusive on standard of care)
- Trzcinski v. Richey, 190 Conn. 285 (1983) (proximate cause review and factual vs. legal question)