Bifield v. Bruner-Ritter, Inc., BRUNER-RITTE

Decision Date07 January 1958
Docket NumberBRUNER-RITTE,I
Citation144 Conn. 747,137 A.2d 751
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesMesina M. BIFIELD v.nc. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Samuel Engelman, Bridgeport, for appellant (defendant).

Paul L. Blawie, Bridgeport, for appellee (plaintiff)

Before WYNNE, C. J., and BALDWIN, DALY, KING and MURPHY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this action the plaintiff had a verdict against the defendant, the only party she looked to for damages. She was in the employ of the United States government at the defendant's premises. The defendant is a manufacturer and was supplying certain products to the government. These products were inspected by government inspectors assigned to a portion of the defendant's plant. It appears that two adjoining rooms were placed at the exclusive service of the government. Furniture and equipment were provided by the defendant. Included was a chair upon which the plaintiff had occasion to sit in the course of her employment. The chair collapsed, causing the plaintiff to fall to the floor and sustain the injuries which were the basis of this suit.

The finding sets forth that plaintiff offered evidence, and claimed to have proved, that the defendant provided and maintained the furniture used by the government. Apparently this was done under the defendant's contract with the government. It is not questioned that the chair collapsed and that the plaintiff was thereby injured. Nor are the nature and extent of her injuries called into question. The appeal is solely concerned with the court's failure to charge on the question of control of the two rooms which had been assigned for the use of the government. It is argued that the court should have charged that the government was solely responsible for the two rooms and for the furniture and equipment therein. The complaint predicated liability of the defendant on a tortious breach of duty, springing, not from its control of the area of the premises where the government employees, including the plaintiff, worked, but from its agreement with the government to keep that area, including the chair and other furnishings therein, reasonably safe for normal use. The governing rule is that set forth in cases such as Dean v. Hershowitz, 119 Conn. 398, 406, 177 A. 262. Under the particular facts of the case, the defendant's criticism of the charge is without merit.

There is no error.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Bartolotta v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • November 2, 1967
    ...Bank, 128 Conn. 493, 495, 23 A.2d 922, 924 (1942); Zotkin v. Katz, 126 Conn. 445, 11 A.2d 843 (1940). 22 Cf. Bifield v. Bruner-Ritter, 144 Conn. 747, 137 A.2d 751 (1958) (defendant assumed duty to maintain work area); Dean v. Hershowitz, 119 Conn. 398, 177 A. 262 (1935) (defendant failed to......
  • Kaplan v. Merberg Wrecking Corp.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1965
    ...of a contractual relationship a tort liability, as in negligence, may arise. See, for instance, cases such as Bifield v. Bruner-Ritter, Inc., 144 Conn. 747, 748, 137 A.2d 751; Wright v. Blakeslee, 102 Conn. 162, 165, 128 A. 113. And it sometimes happens that in such a situation an action is......
  • Hedderman v. Robert Hall of Waterbury, Inc.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1958
    ...v. Hershowitz, 119 Conn. 398, 409, 177 A. 262; Urban v. Hartford Gas Co., 139 Conn. 301, 304, 93 A.2d 292, and Bifield v. Bruner-Ritter, Inc., 144 Conn. 747, 748, 137 A.2d 751. There may, of course, be situations where even though there is no breach of a contract, a liability arises because......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT