Knybel v. Cramer
| Decision Date | 07 December 1942 |
| Citation | 129 Conn. 439,29 A.2d 576 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | KNYBEL v. CRAMER. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Tolland County; Daly, Judge.
Action by John Knybel, administrator of the estate of Edward K. Knybel, deceased, against Ethel Cramer to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's, intestate alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant. The case was tried to the court. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
No error.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and JENNINGS, ELLS, DICKENSON, and INGLIS, JJ.
George H. Cohen, of Hartford (Naaman Cohen, of Hartford, on the brief), for appellant (defendant).
Robert J. Pigeon and Byron P. Yost, both of Rockville, for appellee (plaintiff).
The plaintiff brought this action to recover for the death of his intestate, a child of eleven years of age, who was burned to death in the cellar of a store owned and operated by the defendant, and from a judgment for the plaintiff the defendant has appealed. The complaint alleged three grounds of recovery, negligence based upon a violation of the statute providing that no minor under sixteen years of age should be employed or permitted to work in a mercantile establishment, negligence in failing to furnish him a safe place in which to work, and nuisance. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on the first two grounds and also upon the ground of negligence in another respect. As its conclusions as to the plaintiff's right to recover upon the first ground were correct, it is not necessary to consider the others.
The facts relevant to this ground of recovery, with such corrections as we make in the finding, are as follows: The defendant Ethel Cramer owned and operated a woman's apparel store. Her husband, Paul Cramer, worked therein as her assistant. The plaintiff's intestate, Edward Knybel, was a bright strong boy eleven years of age. From time to time over a period of six to eight weeks immediately prior to March 11, 1938, he worked in the defendant's store running errands and doing odd jobs. When he was asked to work by Ethel Cramer, he was paid by her. When he was asked to work by Paul Cramer, he was paid by him. On occasion Ethel Cramer was present when he was asked to work by Paul Cramer.
The main place of business in the store was on the ground floor. From this floor a stairway of about fourteen steps led down into a cellar. The cellar had a dirt floor and brick walls. At one end there was a doorway opening on an alleyway. This was fitted with a wooden door reinforced with iron bars. The door opened in and was locked with a steel bar and padlock, the key to which was left in the padlock at all times. Twenty feet from the foot of the stairway was a furnace.
On March 11, 1938, a shipment of millinery and dresses arrived at the store in cartons, the hats in addition being wrapped in tissue paper. These articles were unpacked sometime between 11 a. m. and 1 p. m. on that day and the cartons, eight or ten of them varying in size from two to three feet by one foot, were thrown down the cellar stairs with the tissue paper and littered the cellar floor. In the afternoon the plaintiff's intestate came to the store to work and was directed by Paul Cramer to go to the cellar, make up boxes to be used for dresses and clean away the paper. At about 3:20 p. m. a fire of unknown origin started in inflammable tissue paper and cartons in the cellar. The boy was working in the cellar at the time and called for Mr. Cramer. On the first occasion Ethel Cramer heard him but did nothing. On the second she went to the rear of the store, looked down the stairs into the cellar and saw paper burning. She called her husband, who went down into the cellar. She later called the fire department and warned people in the dressing room on the main floor to get out. She knew of the presence of the cartons and tissue paper in the cellar.
When Paul Cramer ran down into the cellar, he saw the fire and said to the boy, "Let's get some cardboard and try to put it out." This the two did, but without success. Then Paul Cramer ran into the lavatory, took a washbasin filled with water and threw it on the fire. This was of no avail and he then went to the door at the rear end of the cellar, removed the iron bar and went out leaving the boy in the cellar. Once outside Paul Cramer called for help which arrived in the form of a Mr. Weingartner. Cramer heard the boy screaming and told Mr. Weingartner the boy was in the cellar. Mr. Weingartner crawled on his hands and knees through the back entrance and found the boy's dead body north of the stairs. He had been burned to death. One wall of the store was burned and the ceiling was blistered by heat before the fire was extinguished.
General Statutes, Sup.1937, § 791d, in force at the time of the occurrences in question, reads in part as follows:
The assignments of error pursued in the brief which attack the judgment as far as it is based upon a violation of this statute are: (1) There was no employment in violation of the statute (involving a question of agency); (2) if there was such an employment it was not the proximate cause of the death of the plaintiff's intestate; (3) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slicer v. Quigley
...v. Cooper, 85 Ohio St. 327, 98 N.E. 102 (1912), reached a similar result with regard to the sale of morphine. See also Knybel v. Cramer, 129 Conn. 439, 29 A.2d 576 (1942) (employer liable for death of minor employed in violation of statute); Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294, 111 N.W. 2......
-
Gore v. People's Sav. Bank
...its violation, suffered such an injury as the statute was intended to guard against has a good ground of recovery.' Knybel v. Cramer, 129 Conn. 439, 443, 29 A.2d 576 [1942]; Coughlin v. Peters, 153 Conn. 99, 102, 214 A.2d 127 [1965]. That principle of the law sets forth two conditions which......
-
Zuchowicz v. U.S.
...at 270; see also Calabresi, supra note 6, at 71-73. It is clear that Connecticut accepts this approach. See, e.g., Knybel v. Cramer, 129 Conn. 439, 29 A.2d 576, 577-78 (1942) (after asking whether the defendant's negligence was the cause of an injury, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors......
-
Wright v. Brown
...its violation, suffered such an injury as the statute was intended to guard against has a good ground of recovery.' Knybel v. Cramer, 129 Conn. 439, 443, 29 A.2d 576, 577; Coughlin v. Peters, 153 Conn. 99, 102, 214 A.2d 127. That principle of the law sets forth two conditions which must coe......