Campus v. McElligott
| Decision Date | 10 July 1936 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CAMPUS et al. v. McELLIGOTT et al. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Elbert B Hamlin, Judge.
Action by Tony Campus against Edward B. McElligott and Fred P Hodson and William K. Lawlor, executors of the will of James W. Hodson, deceased, and others, wherein the Connecticut Light & Power Company intervened as a party plaintiff, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in falling into a hatchway in the sidewalk in front of a building owned by the estate represented by the defendant executors, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants. From a judgment for plaintiffs against all the defendants, the defendant executors appeal.
No error.
Martin E. Gormley, of New Haven, and Adrian W. Maher, of Bridgeport for appellants.
Yale Matzkin, of Waterbury, for appellee.
Francis P. Guilfoile, of Waterbury, for defendants McElligott et al.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN, JJ.
In this action the following material facts appear in the court's finding, which is not attacked by this appeal: The Hodson estate, of which the defendants Hodson and Lawlor are executors, is the owner of an office building on Center street, a much-traveled highway in the business section of Waterbury. In the 7-foot sidewalk abutting the front of this building is a trapdoor affording access to the basement. This door, when closed, is approximately flush with the sidewalk, and extends out into the walk from the door's inner edge close to the front of the building 54 inches. It is approximately 36 inches in width and is in two sections, each 18 inches wide, made of plank 1 3/4 inches thick and each section weighing 30 to 35 pounds. Each section opens upward, being attached on its outer edge by two hinges' to an opposite side of the hatchway opening; these sides extending at right angles to the front of the building. There was no guard or warning in connection with the door. Ordinances of the city forbade the construction of such a doorway without permission from its authorities, and also leaving such a door open unless properly guarded. About a month before the plaintiff sustained his injuries, the defendant executors engaged the defendants McElligott to supply fuel oil for heating this building as needed, and in connection therewith authorized them to make inspections for the purpose of keeping the oil tanks filled. Pursuant to the arrangement the defendants McElligott instructed their employee Irvin to make regular inspections of the oil tanks in the building to determine the amount of oil on hand and to report whenever oil was needed, which they supplied. The defendant executors provided this trapdoor for the use of the defendants McElligott in this connection, and the latter instructed Irvin to use it in entering and leaving the building when making the inspections required. On October 29, 1934, at about half past two in the afternoon, the plaintiff Campus, in the exercise of due care, was walking along the sidewalk in front of the building approaching the trapdoor, which was closed. Just as he reached it, the section further from him was pushed open from below by Irvin, who had been making an inspection of the oil tanks in the cellar pursuant to the instructions above recited, causing Campus to step into the opening so made, whereupon the door was let fall upon him, resulting in a comminuted fracture of both bones of his left leg just below the knee.
The court concluded that the defendant executors and the defendants McElligott were jointly liable to the plaintiff Campus and the plaintiff Connecticut Light & Power Company, intervening as his employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen. St.1930, § 5223 et seq.), and rendered judgment accordingly. The defendant executors have appealed, assigning as errors this conclusion of the court and the overruling of their claims that no negligence upon their part contributed to the plaintiff Campus' injuries, but that the sole proximate cause thereof was the negligence of the defendants McElligott, who were independent contractors, and against whom only judgment should have been rendered.
The vital question determinative of this appeal is whether it falls within one of the exceptions to the general rule excusing the contractee landowner from liability for the negligent conduct of the independent contractor in his performance of their contract. This court has referred to one such exception in a case involving an intrinsically dangerous act, in terms broad enough to apply to the situation here, in these words: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Community Gas Co. v. Williams
...if the work is dangerous in itself unless reasonable care is taken to render it harmless, this doctrine does not apply. Campus v. McElligott, 122 Conn. 14, 187 A. 29. Inflammable gas is an inherently dangerous substance. Bray v. Atlanta Gas-Light Co., 46 Ga.App. 629, 168 S.E. 96; Chisholm v......
-
Trainor v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc.
...Bros., Inc., 137 Conn. 501, 507, 78 A.2d 887; Millstone Corporation v. Laurel Oil Co., 131 Conn. 636, 639, 41 A.2d 711; Campus v. McElligott, 122 Conn. 14, 17, 187, A. 29; Newell v. K. & D. Jewelry Co., 119 Conn. 332, 334, 176 A. 405; Lawrence v. Shipman, 39 Conn. 586, Thus, the question wh......
-
Bonczkiewicz v. Merberg Wrecking Corp.
...The charge here followed our law as laid down in cases such as Millstone Corporation v. Laurel Oil Co., supra; Campus v. McElligott, 122 Conn. 14, 18, 187 A. 29; Alexander v. R. A. Sherman's Sons Co., supra; Norwalk Gaslight Co. v. Borough of Norwalk, 63 Conn. 495, 528, 28 A. 32; see note, ......
-
Preferred Accident Ins. Co. Of N.Y. v. Musante
...the opening was created and left unprotected by the defendant in this action; the principle applied was that stated in Campus v. McElligott, 122 Conn. 14, 19, 187 A. 29. The complaint in the present action as amplified by that file may be summarized in this way: Tully fell into an opening i......