Del Gaudio v. Ingerson
| Citation | 115 A.2d 665,142 Conn. 564 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 12 July 1955 |
| Parties | Joseph F. DEL GAUDIO et al. v. Arthur B. INGERSON et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
James B. Hallett, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Warren Maxwell, Hartford, for appellants (defendants).
James F. Dawson, New Britain, and Leonard G. Tracy, Hartford, for appellees (plaintiffs).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
O'SULLIVAN, Associate Justice.
The plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought this action to recover for damage resulting from a fire at their home on January 13, 1951. The complaint was in two counts, the first sounding in breach of warranty and the second, in negligence. The original defendants were Arthur B. and Robert D. Ingerson, brothers doing business as the Ingerson Heating Company, and Bernard Friedman. Friedman was the president of a building concern and corporate developer known as Pinecrest, Inc., but he was sued only in his individual capacity. He was granted a nonsuit at the close of the plaintiffs' case. The court found the issues for the Ingersons on the first count but against them on the second. In considering their appeal, we shall refer to them as the defendants.
The finding, which is not subject to correction, recites the following facts: In July, 1950, the defendants agreed to install electrically operated oil burners in twenty-seven new homes being erected in an area under development by Pinecrest, Inc., in the town of Rocky Hill. The defendants purchased the burners from a manufacturing concern in Syracuse, New York, and were paid for them by Pinecrest, Inc., as the work of installation in each house was completed. On October 9, 1950, the plaintiff husband entered into an agreement to buy from Pinecrest, Inc., one of the houses then in the process of construction. It was not until November 20 that the defendants installed a burner in that house. Since there was no cellar, the entire heating unit was placed in a utility closet on the ground floor. After attaching the burner to the other part of the unit and making the necessary electric connections, one of the defendants tested and put the burner into operation. Thereafter, neither defendant returned to check how it was working.
The plaintiffs took title to the premises on December 28, 1950. From November 20, the date of installation, until the following January 10, when they moved into the house, the burner was in operation most, if not all, of the time. The heat was kept high because the unfinished house was being decorated and the floors varnished. From January 10 to January 13, the plaintiffs did not touch the burner. During those three days, the burner's cycle for heating the house covered periods of up to two hours, although, to get ample heat, the burner should have run only from five to twenty minutes. A cycle of two hours indicated that not enough heat was generated in the furnace. This defective operation of the burner was caused by a fouling of the electrodes or by the presence of foreign matter in the nozzle of the burner, thus giving rise to faulty ignition and to a low or distorted flame in the combustion chamber.
The plaintiff husband left for work about 6 a. m. on the morning of January 13. Less than an hour later, the plaintiff wife, while in the bathroom adjacent to the utility closet, heard a noise or rumble which she described as a 'poof.' She went into the living room and, on returning to the bathroom, felt a rush of hot air coming through an air duct. She then went into the kitchen, where smoke was pouring out of the utility closet. After first turning off the emergency switch, she opened the closet door and saw flames coming from the steel housing of the burner. The housing had dropped several inches and there was a hole in it about the size of a half dollar. The fire spread rapidly to other parts of the house, and both the building and its contents were badly damaged.
The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the 'fire was caused by the defendants in that they negligently, carelessly and improperly installed said oil burner.' The court concluded that the defendants were negligent not only in the manner alleged but also because they failed to inspect the burner after it had been installed. Passing the question whether the latter conclusion was permissible under the allegations of the complaint, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pastorelli v. Associated Engineers, Inc.
...164 N.Y.S.2d 699, 143 N.E.2d 895, 59 A.L.R.2d 1072; Russell v. Whitcomb, Inc., 1956, 100 N.H. 171, 121 A.2d 781; Del Gaudio v. Ingerson, 1955, 142 Conn. 564, 115 A.2d 665; Hunter v. Quality Homes, Inc., 1949, 6 Terry 100, 45 Del. 100, 68 A.2d 620; Hale v. Depaoli, 1948, 33 Cal.2d 228, 201 P......
-
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
...33 Cal.2d 228, 201 P.2d 1, 13 A.L.R.2d 183; Schifano v. Security Building Company, 133 Cal.App.2d 70, 283 P.2d 306; Del Gaudio v. Ingerson, 142 Conn. 564, 115 A.2d 665; Paul Harris Furniture Co. v. Morse, 10 Ill.2d 28, 139 N.E.2d 275; Andrews v. Del Guzzi, 56 Wash.2d 381, 353 P.2d 422, abse......
-
Talley v. Skelly Oil Co.
...80 S.E.2d 857; Reynolds v. Manley, 223 Ark. 314, 265 S.W.2d 714; Hand v. Harrison, 99 Ga.App. 429, 108 S.E.2d 814; Del Gaudio v. Ingerson, 142 Conn. 564, 115 A.2d 665; Annotation: Contractor-Liability To Third Persons, 58 A.L.R.2d 881, et seq.; 27 Am.Jur., Independent Contractors, § 56, p. ......
-
Coburn v. Lenox Homes, Inc.
...heretofore consistently followed this rule. See Wright v. Coe & Anderson, Inc., 156 Conn. 145, 151, 239 A.2d 493; Del Gaudio v. Ingerson, 142 Conn. 564, 568, 115 A.2d 665; Howard v. Redden, 93 Conn. 604, 612, 107 A. 509; see also annot., 58 A.L.R.2d 865, and 13 A.L.R.2d 191: "Negligence of ......