LaFleur v. Farmington River Power Co.

• Decision Date: 08 June 1982
• Citation: 187 Conn. 339,445 A.2d 924
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Paul A. LaFLEUR, Sr., Administrator (ESTATE OF Paul A. LaFLEUR, Jr.) v. The FARMINGTON RIVER POWER COMPANY et al.

Page 924

445 A.2d 924

187 Conn. 339

Paul A. LaFLEUR, Sr., Administrator (ESTATE OF Paul A. LaFLEUR, Jr.) v. The FARMINGTON RIVER POWER COMPANY et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 31, 1982.

Decided June 8, 1982.

George D. Royster, Jr., with whom were Mark Seiger and, on the brief, John W. Lemega, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Bourke G. Spellacy, with whom, on the brief, were Charles Corcoran, III and Emily G. H. Sullivan, Hartford, for appellee (named defendant).

Before SPEZIALE, C. J., and PETERS, HEALEY, PARSKEY and SHEA, JJ.

SPEZIALE, Chief Justice.

In this wrongful death action, the jury returned a general verdict for the defendant Farmington River Power Company. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment rendered on the verdict, claiming various errors in the trial court's instructions to the jury.

The jury could reasonably have found the following facts: On July 8, 1974, Paul A. LaFleur, Jr., the plaintiff's decedent, was employed as a tree trimmer by Butler's Nursery in West Hartford. On that date, LaFleur and a fellow employee were on a tree trimming assignment at 186 Hunter Drive in West Hartford, a property owned by Robert E. and Dorothy Beach. ¹ Some of the hedges and trees to be trimmed were located in a right-of-way through which the defendant Farmington River Power Company had run high voltage electrical transmission lines. In order to trim a tree located within this right-of-way, LaFleur apparently climbed another tree within the right-of-way, at the same time carrying a fourteen foot, all-aluminum pruning saw. At approximately 9:40 a. m., LaFleur was electrocuted, either by a direct contact of the saw with the wires or by an arcing of electricity from the uninsulated high voltage wires to the tip of the metal blade of the prunning saw. A tree surgeon employed by Butler's Nursery testified that he had taught LaFleur to exercise caution around wires and that three days prior to the accident, he had pointed out to LaFleur the "hot" wires crossing the Beach property. He further testified that the use of an all-aluminum trimmer near wires was improper. An expert witness for the defendant power company testified that LaFleur would not have been electrocuted had he been using a pruning saw with a wooden handle.

The plaintiff's substituted complaint contained one count, setting forth a cause of action in negligence. The allegations of negligence raised numerous issues including the defendant's duty to warn, the defendant's failure to trim trees and shrubs within the right-of-way, and the defendant's alleged failure to conform to the requirements of the regulations of the public utilities commission and various provisions of the National Electrical Safety Code.

In answer to the complaint, the defendant denied being negligent and, by way of special defense, alleged that the plaintiff's decedent was contributorily negligent and that such negligence was the cause of his death. ²

On appeal, the plaintiff has claimed various errors in the trial court's instructions on negligence. In particular, the plaintiff challenges the adequacy of the court's explanation that a violation of applicable regulations ³ or provisions of the National Electrical Safety Code ⁴ would constitute negligence per se. The plaintiff, however, has not challenged the court's instructions on the special defense of contributory negligence.

As previously noted, the jury returned a general verdict for the defendant. The parties did not request the court to submit interrogatories to the jury "for the purpose of explaining or limiting a general verdict." Practice Book § 312. It is presumed, therefore, that the jury found every issue in favor of the defendant. Colucci v. Pinette, --- Conn. ---, ---, 441 A.2d 574 (43 Conn.L.J., No. 20, pp. 5, 6) (1981); Johnson v. Pagano, --- Conn. ---, ---, 440 A.2d 244 (43 Conn.L.J., No. 2, pp. 6, 7) (1981); Kosko v. Kohler, 176 Conn. 383, 385-86, 407 A.2d 1009 (1978); Burcaw v. Sykora, 173 Conn. 229, 230, 377 A.2d 298 (1977); Hally v. Hospital of St. Raphael, 162 Conn. 352, 362-63, 294 A.2d 305 (1972); Kelly v. Bliss, 160 Conn. 128, 131-32, 273 A.2d 873 (1970); Royal Homes, Inc. v. Dalene Hardwood Flooring Co., 151 Conn. 463, 466, 199 A.2d 698 (1964); 76 Am.Jur.2d, Trial § 1111. The defendant's denial of negligence and its allegation of contributory negligence constitute two separate and distinct defenses, either one of which could support the jury's general verdict. Colucci v. Pinette, supra, --- Conn. at --- - ---, 441 A.2d 574; Hanken v. Buckley Bros., Inc., 159 Conn. 438, 442-43, 270 A.2d 556 (1970); Meglio v. Comeau, 137 Conn. 551, 553, 79 A.2d 187 (1951). If "the court's instructions are shown to be proper and adequate as to any one of the defenses raised, the general verdict will stand irrespective of any error in the charge as to the others." Johnson v. Pagano, supra, --- Conn. at ---, 440 A.2d 244; see Colucci v. Pinette, supra, --- Conn. at ---, 441 A.2d 574; Kosko v. Kohler, supra, 176 Conn. at 385, 407 A.2d 1009; Messina v. Iannucci, 174 Conn. 275, 276-77, 386 A.2d 241 (1978); Kelly v. Bliss, supra, 160 Conn. at 132, 273 A.2d 873; Gennallo v. Mazzacane, 144 Conn. 686, 689, 137 A.2d 534 (1957); Meglio v. Comeau, supra, 137 Conn. at 553, 79 A.2d 187; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 56.

In this case the plaintiff has not taken issue with the court's instructions on...