King v. Palmer

• Decision Date: 17 February 1943
• Citation: 129 Conn. 636,30 A.2d 549
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: KING et al. v. PALMER et al.

129 Conn. 636

30 A.2d 549

KING et al.

v.PALMER et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 17, 1943.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Wynne, Judge.

Action by William A. King and others against H. S. Palmer and others, for injuries to named plaintiff alleged to have been caused by negligence of defendant, brought to Superior Court and tried to the court.Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., was allowed to intervene as a partyplaintiff.Judgment for plaintiffs and appeal by defendants.

No error.

James W. Grady, of New Haven, for appellants.

Nathan G. Sachs, of New Haven, for appellee.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

ELLS, Judge.

The plaintiff King brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him by reason of the defendants' negligence in the operation of a truck in their enginehouse at Cedar Hill in New Haven.He was a steam fitter in the employ of the Foskett & Bishop Company, an independent contractor engaged in replacing and reconstructing the entire heating and steam pressure system of the engine house.An award of compensation by his employer was made to the plaintiff and he brought this tort action against the defendants under General Statutes, § 5231.The insurance carrier for the employer intervened as a coplaintiff.The defendants denied liability at law and claimed that they were the principal employers of King within the meaning of General Statutes, § 5230, with consequent liability for compensation and immunity from tort action.The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff King for a substantial amount subject to the subrogation claim of the intervening plaintiff.The sole question upon this appeal concerns the court's decision that the defendants were not the principal employers of King at the time of his injury within the meaning of § 5230.

The factual situation as it appears from the finding, corrected in certain respects, may be summarized as follows: The enginehouse is used for the repair and servicing of locomotives used for the operation of the defendants' trains.Low pressure steam is used for heating the enginehouse and high pressure steam is used for servicing engines.The contract of the Foskett & Bishop Company was in writing and provided for the replacement of the entire heating and servicing system of the enginehouse.The existing system was in disrepair and had not been replaced in its entirety for many years.The contractor ripped out four different lines of old pipes running around the enginehouse, namely, the low pressure and high pressure steam, the air and the water pipes, and replaced them with new pipes which rested upon metal hangers extended from the roof, all in accordance with specifications outlined in blue prints The enginehouse is one of the largest on the New Haven Railroad system, and the contract was for a major job.The contractor furnished all materials, superintendence, labor, tools, equipment and transportation.The contract provided that the work would be done at the risk of the Foskett & Bishop Company, except damage or injury caused solely and directly by the negligence of the defendants' agents or employees, and that the contractor would comply with all state and federal workmen's compensation liability laws and at all times would carry and pay premiums on all policies of insurance required by such laws.The work of replacing the pipes was undertaken with the knowledge and understanding that the operation of the enginehouse would necessarily be continued at the same time.The defendants had in their employ at the enginehouse eighteen or nineteen steam fitters.Two were engaged in maintaining the steam and air pipes and in fixing leaks and they were continuously busy at this work.Sixteen or seventeen steam fitters were assigned to the maintenance of locomotives and were available at all times for that work.The defendants were not equipped to do the major job of reconstruction called for by the contract with Foskett & Bishop.The defendants had no control over the employees of the contractor, nor the right to hire or discharge them or give them any orders in respect to the work to be done.The preparation of some of the work and equipment was done on the premises of the contractor and not on those of the defendants.

General Statutes, § 5230, provides that ‘When any principal employer shall procure any work to be done wholly or in part for him by a contractor, or through him by a subcontractor, and the work so procured to be done shall be a part or process in the trade or business of such principal employer, and shall be performed in, on or about the premises under his control, then such principal employer shall be liable to pay all compensation under this chapter to the same extent as if the work were done without the intervention of...