Sequenzia v. Guerrieri Masonry, Inc.
298 Conn. 816
| Conn. | 2010Background
- Plaintiff Sequenzia sued Guerrieri Masonry for common-law negligence after a boom on a delivery truck contacted power lines, causing serious injuries.
- Hodess Building Company had a prior settlement with Sequenzia and was removed from the case; Hodess had a subcontract with Guerrieri for masonry work.
- On November 14, 2003, plaintiff delivered bricks; Guerrieri advised to move away from power lines; a warning sign on the truck existed but was ignored by plaintiff.
- Plaintiff operated a boom-controlled mechanism; the boom struck power lines; Guerrieri allegedly grabbed the control box and pulled it away, ending the contact.
- The trial court charged two negligence theories, including failure to warn; the jury apportioned 30% to Guerrieri, 25% to Hodess, and 45% to Sequenzia.
- Posttrial motions argued the failure-to-warn instruction was improper; the trial court denied based on alternative grounds, not sole basis for verdict.
- The Appellate Court reversed, grounding on instructional impropriety, and remanded for a new trial; Sequenzia petitioned for certification.
- Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification to address whether the Appellate Court properly addressed an instructional-impropriety claim not raised on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether the Appellate Court properly decided an instructional-impropriety claim not raised on appeal | Sequenzia argues Guerrieri abandoned the claim and Appellate Court erred | Guerrieri contends supervisory review allowed the claim despite lack of briefing | Appellate Court improperly decided |
| whether posttrial briefing sufficed to preserve appellate issues | Briefing in trial court should not substitute for proper appellate briefing | Posttrial briefing and argument sufficed to alert on appeal | Posttrial briefing insufficient; issue abandoned |
| whether abandonment of the claim requires reversal and remand | Abandonment prevents appellate consideration | Appellate authority may reach issues to ensure just resolution | Abandonment prevented appellate consideration; remand allowed for properly raised claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabrowski v. Sabrowski, 282 Conn. 556 (2007) (appellate review limits; cannot decide issues not raised or briefed)
- State v. Dalzell, 282 Conn. 709 (2007) (appellate court may address new issues only with supplemental briefing)
- State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207 (2007) (unbriefed claims abandoned; need concrete briefing to preserve on appeal)
- Lynch v. Granby Holdings, Inc., 230 Conn. 95 (1994) (plain error review requires opportunity to brief; not applicable here)
- Jackson v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 278 Conn. 692 (2006) (appellate briefing standards and issue preservation guidance)
- Grimm v. Grimm, 276 Conn. 377 (2005) (briefing standards; abandonment for inadequately briefed issues)
- Czarnecki v. Plastics Liquidating Co., 179 Conn. 261 (1979) (unbriefed or inadequately briefed issues deemed abandoned)