152 Conn.App. 732
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff Ricky Sola slipped and fell in a Wal‑Mart aisle during store renovations; subcontractor Horizon (employee Largie) had been stripping/waxing a test area shortly before the fall.
- Horizon applied stripping solution that made the floor slippery and used equipment as a makeshift barrier; plaintiff says he entered the area and fell without seeing warnings; Horizon testified he had blocked the area.
- Plaintiff sued Wal‑Mart for premises liability, alleging failure to maintain/dry/warn; Wal‑Mart pleaded duty but denied negligence and asserted plaintiff’s comparative negligence.
- Plaintiff argued at trial that Wal‑Mart is vicariously liable under the nondelegable duty doctrine for Horizon’s negligence; the court gave a limited nondelegable‑duty instruction but tied liability to Wal‑Mart’s actual or constructive notice or to an agency finding.
- Jury interrogatories required the jury to stop and return a defense verdict if it found no actual or constructive notice; jury answered that Wal‑Mart lacked notice and did not reach other questions.
- Trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict; appellate court reversed and ordered a new trial, concluding the instructions and interrogatories misapplied the nondelegable duty doctrine and misled the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instructions/interrogatories properly applied nondelegable duty (vicarious liability for independent contractor’s negligence) | Court should have instructed that if Horizon negligently created the dangerous condition, Wal‑Mart is vicariously liable under the nondelegable duty regardless of Wal‑Mart’s actual/constructive notice or agency finding | Nondelegable duty does not relieve plaintiff of proving premises‑liability elements including actual/constructive notice; interrogatories were proper; evidence may have supported no hazardous condition | Reversed: instructions and interrogatories were incomplete/misleading; jury could not consider vicarious liability under nondelegable duty and was improperly directed to a defense verdict if no notice was found; new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Greenwich, 278 Conn. 428 (recognizing nondelegable duty creates vicarious liability for contractor’s negligence)
- Gazo v. Stamford, 255 Conn. 245 (landowner owes nondelegable duty to invitees; may contract performance but not ultimate responsibility)
- Machado v. Hartford, 292 Conn. 364 (general rule that employer not liable for independent contractor’s negligence and discussion of exceptions)
- Edmands v. CUNO, Inc., 277 Conn. 425 (standard for trial court setting aside jury verdict)
- Earlington v. Anastasi, 293 Conn. 194 (trial court’s discretion over jury interrogatories and need to show both abuse and harm)