143 Conn. App. 62
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendants own the Connecticut Post Mall and the mall was undergoing a construction expansion (movie theater).
- Metroguard, Inc. was hired to provide security for the construction site, including preventing unauthorized access and theft.
- Plaintiff Millette, a Metroguard security guard, fell on February 27, 2006 while ascending a stairway to the construction site; the stairway was scaffolded with hanging plastic material creating a opening.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence alleging failure to keep the area safe, inspect, and warn; trial occurred Oct. 2011 with jury finding damages for Millette and comparative negligence attributed to Millette (20%).
- Defendants moved for directed verdict; the court reserved then granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in defendants’ favor, ruling Millette failed to prove the defendants had possession/control of the area; appeal followed.
- The court on plenary review held that there was insufficient evidence that defendants retained possession/control and accordingly affirmed the JNOV; court also rejected the nondelegable duty doctrine as basis for liability in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted JNOV for lack of control evidence. | Millette contends evidence supports defendants’ possession/control of the area. | Defendants assert no proof they controlled the specific area at the time. | Yes; court affirmed, finding insufficient evidence of control. |
| Whether nondelegable duty applies despite lack of control evidence. | Millette argues nondelegable duty could impose liability on owner. | Defendants contend nondelegable duty requires control/possession; not applicable here. | No; court affirmed, nondelegable duty does not apply without possession/control. |
| Whether securities or contractor arrangements affect control analysis. | Millette cites admissions and security/maintenance roles as showing control. | Admissions not admitted at trial; control remains unresolved; reliance on owner status insufficient. | Court found admissions not properly before jury and control remained unresolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gurguis v. Frankel, 93 Conn. App. 162 (2006) (elements of negligence and premises liability)
- Morin v. Bell Court Condominium Assn., Inc., 223 Conn. 323 (1992) (status of entrant as matter of law under undisputed facts)
- Archambault v. Soneco/Northeastern, Inc., 287 Conn. 20 (2008) (nondelegable duty not imposed absent possession/control for worksite)
- Smith v. Greenwich, 278 Conn. 428 (2006) (nondelegable duty generally tied to safety obligations on premises)
- Gazo v. Stamford, 255 Conn. 245 (2001) (nondelegable duty context and contractor liability)