Gajewski v. Pavelo
| Decision Date | 06 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 15203,15203 |
| Citation | 236 Conn. 27,670 A.2d 318 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,569 Maria GAJEWSKI et al. v. Arthur PAVELO et al. |
Rosalind J. Koskoff, Bridgeport, with whom were Michael Koskoff and, on the brief, Joan C. Harrington and Richard A. Fuchs, for appellants (plaintiffs).
James E. Coyne, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Colleen D. Fries, for appellee (defendant Utica Radiator Corporation).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BORDEN, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.
Under General Statutes § 52-572q, 1 a provision of the Connecticut Product Liability Act, a product may be defective solely because a manufacturer or seller has failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions to a claimant who has suffered harm because of the absence of such warnings or instructions. In this certified appeal, the only issue is whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its jury instructions on the scope of the statutory duty to warn.
The plaintiffs, Maria Gajewski, Jan Gajewski and Janusz Gajewski, filed a multicount complaint against a number of defendants, including Utica Radiator Corporation (Utica), to recover for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning. The jury returned a verdict resolving all claims in favor of the defendants. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to set aside the verdict and rendered judgment for the defendants. On appeal, the Appellate Court first concluded that the judgment should be affirmed in accordance with the general verdict rule. Gajewski v. Pavelo, 32 Conn.App. 373, 375, 629 A.2d 465 (1993). After reversal by this court; Gajewski v. Pavelo, 229 Conn. 829, 643 A.2d 1276 (1994); the Appellate Court considered the underlying merits of the plaintiffs' appeal, and again affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn.App. 601, 652 A.2d 509 (1994). We granted the plaintiffs' petition for certification with respect to the propriety of the trial court's instructions on the statutory duty to warn established by § 52-572q. 2
As the Appellate Court noted, the jury reasonably could have found that the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs were caused by poisonous gases resulting from a buildup of soot in a chimney flue in their home. This buildup of soot prevented their furnace from venting properly. The furnace had recently been equipped with a new gas fired boiler manufactured by Utica. The gas boiler was installed by a licensed plumber who, as part of the installation process, cleaned the chimney sufficiently to render the furnace operational. At that time, the plumber warned the plaintiffs of the necessity of having the chimney cleaned thoroughly. Utica itself, however, did not warn the plaintiffs directly of this necessity. Id., at 606, 652 A.2d 509. In instructing the jury with respect to Utica's liability in these circumstances, the trial court informed the jury that, if it found that Utica had a duty to warn the plaintiffs, it could consider the plumber's professional knowledge and skills in its assessment of whether Utica had effectively discharged its duty. Id., at 617, 652 A.2d 509.
The plaintiffs maintain that the trial court's jury instructions with respect to Utica's duty to warn them were: (1) improper as a matter of law under § 52-572q, and (2) internally inconsistent and inherently confusing. They argue that the Appellate Court misunderstood or overlooked their claims and therefore improperly upheld the judgment against them. We are unpersuaded.
After examining the record on appeal, and after considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court. It would serve no useful purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vitanza v. Upjohn Co.
...from harm caused by defective and hazardous products.'" Gajewski v. Pavelo, 36 Conn. App. 601, 614, 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff d, 236 Conn. 27, 670 A.2d 318 (1996). Another important purpose of the act was to "eliminate the complex pleading provided at common law...." Lynn v. Haybuster Mfg., ......
-
Vitanza v. Upjohn Co.
...("[The CPLA] was intended to merge the various common law theories of products lability into one cause of action."), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27, 670 A.2d 318 (1996); Lynn v. Haybuster Mfg., Inc., 226 Conn. 282, 291-92, 627 A.2d 1288 (1993) (referring to the enactment of the CPLA, stating "`we can ......
-
Densberger v. United Technologies Corp.
...theories of breach of warranty, strict liability, and negligence." (citing Lynn, 226 Conn. at 292, 627 A.2d 1288)), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27, 670 A.2d 318 (1996). Thus, the Second Circuit concluded that, "[s]ince the CPLA was not meant to eliminate common-law substantive rights but does not itse......
-
Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
...into one cause of action." (Footnote omitted.) Gajewski v. Pavelo , 36 Conn. App. 601, 611, 652 A.2d 509 (1994), aff'd, 236 Conn. 27, 670 A.2d 318 (1996). "A principal purpose of the [CPLA] is to protect people from harm caused by defective and hazardous products. In order to meet this purp......
-
Developments in Tort Law: 1996 Annual Survey
...under a plain error standard of review the trial court wrongfidfy granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants?" Id. at 902. 36 236 Conn. 27, 670 A.2d 318 (1996). 37 Certification was granted on the issue of whether the Appellate Court in Gajewski v. Pavelo 36 Conn. App. 601. 652 A......
-
1995 Connecticut Tort Law Review
...was "correct in concluding that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the duty to warn under General Statutes 52-572q.' 107. 236 Conn. 27, 670 A.2d 318 108. 233 Conn. 732, _ A.2d (1995). 109. Id. at 745-50. 110. Id. at 748. 111. Id. at 749. 112. Id. 113. Id. at 741, quoting Boyle ......