206 Conn.App. 523
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Regional School District 8 contracted with M & S Paving and Sealing, Inc. to replace an outdoor concrete stairway for $9,000; work completed before school year 2014 and paid in October 2014.
- By January 22, 2015, substantial cracking appeared in the stairs; defendant welded a railing (not authorized) and performed concrete repairs in May 2015 after repeated notices; additional cracking continued.
- A town building official inspected in August 2015 and found uniformity/code violations for risers, treads, and handrail height; plaintiff later hired Rockfall to replace the stairs and part of the sidewalk in summer 2016 for $34,789.02.
- Plaintiff sued for breach of contract (defective, unworkmanlike work and code noncompliance); trial court found defendant liable for unworkmanlike performance (not for code violations) and awarded $23,983 after deducting amounts unrelated to the breach.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred in finding proximate cause without expert testimony and (2) damages were wrongly calculated because replacement (not repair) was not proven necessary.
- The Appellate Court affirmed: expert testimony was not required under the circumstances (obvious, early, and worsening cracking attributable to defendant), and the court’s finding that replacement was necessary (for cracking independently of code issues) was not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove defendant's work proximately caused the concrete cracking | No — cracking was plain, severe, began within six months, worsened after attempted repair, and defendant was sole contractor, so lay factfinder could infer unworkmanlike performance | Expert testimony required because causation and concrete failure are technical matters beyond lay knowledge; alternative causes (e.g., snowplow impact) possible | Expert testimony not required; court reasonably inferred breach under the "grossly apparent" exception given the timing, severity, and lack of competing admissible evidence |
| Whether damages (replacement cost) were proven and recoverable | Replacement was necessary because cracking alone (separate from code violations) made repair insufficient; plaintiff proved Rockfall’s cost and deductible nonrelated items | Replacement was driven by code compliance (for which defendant was not liable); therefore damages for full replacement were not recoverable | Damages affirmed: trial court found cracking itself necessitated replacement and awarded reasonable compensatory damages; finding not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Osborn v. Waterbury, 333 Conn. 816 (2019) (expert testimony required when issues exceed lay knowledge; not required if negligence is clear to layperson)
- Matyas v. Minck, 37 Conn. App. 321 (1995) (exception to expert requirement when want of care is gross and obvious)
- Cackowski v. Jack A. Halprin, Inc., 133 Conn. 631 (1947) (lay factfinder may find negligence where no intricate engineering issues exist)
- D’Esopo & Co. v. Bleiler, 13 Conn. App. 621 (1988) (expert testimony required where defect causation depends on technical specifications or competing causal theories)
- Western Dermatology Consultants, P.C. v. VitalWorks, Inc., 146 Conn. App. 169 (2013) (standard of review for breach of contract factual findings)
- Bhatia v. Debek, 287 Conn. 397 (2008) (trial court has broad discretion in awarding compensatory damages)
- FCM Group, Inc. v. Miller, 300 Conn. 774 (2011) (damages aim to place injured party in position had contract been performed)