Mcguire v. Hartford Buick Co.

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.
• Citation: Mcguire v. Hartford Buick Co., 131 Conn. 417, 40 A.2d 269 (Conn. 1944)
• Decision Date: 07 December 1944
• Parties: McGUIRE v. HARTFORD BUICK CO.

131 Conn. 417

40 A.2d 269

McGUIRE

v.HARTFORD BUICK CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 7, 1944.

Error to Superior Court, Hartford County; Wynne, Judge.

Action by Mary C. McGuire against the Hartford Buick Company to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence of defendant in failing to make proper inspection of a used automobile purchased from defendant, and for breach of warranty. The action was tried to the jury before Wynne, J., resulting in verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

No error.

Cyril Coleman and Eugene A. Massey, both of Hartford (S. Gene Munford, of Hartford, on the brief), for appellant.

Morton E. Cole, of Hartford (Cyril Cole, of Hartford, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

BROWN, Judge.

In this action for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when a rear wheel of the second-hand automobile purchased by her of the defendant came off, the first count of her complaint is for negligence and the second for breach of warranty. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and their answers to interrogatories establish that the defendant was found liable upon both counts, so that, if the verdict can be supported upon either, the judgment for the plaintiff cannot be disturbed. Knight-Realty Co., Inc. v. Caserta, 126 Conn. 162, 168, 10 A.2d 597. Therefore, in the view which we take of the case, our consideration is confined to the errors assigned as to recovery under the first count. These are two, the court's failure to charge concerning the claimed defense of independent contractor, and one ruling on evidence.

These material facts are not in dispute: On May 29, 1941, the plaintiff purchased a used 1938 Buick sedan of the defendant, which was in the business of selling new and secondhand cars. Before delivery, the car was equipped with two new rear tires. These were installed on the defendant's order by the Tire Regrooving Company, an independent concern, which for a number of years had done tire work for the defendant. In installing them the Tire Company removed both wheels and subsequently put them back on the car. In order to fasten the wheels when replaced on the axle, it was necessary to apply five or six lugs or screw bolts to each wheel. These when properly tightened with a lug wrench secured each wheel to the axle. A hubcap was then applied which covered the lugs. Upon receiving the car back from the Tire Company, the defendant made no inspection to ascertain whether the rear wheels were properly fastened; on May 29 it delivered the car to the plaintiff. The next day the car was driven about forth miles to the seashore, and on June 1, as the plaintiff was being driven in it back to Hartford, the right rear wheel came off the axle by reason of the insecure fastening of the lugs or screw bolts and she was injured. Subsequent to the delivery of the car to her nothing had been done to cause the wheel to come off other than operation of it in a normal manner.

The plaintiff claimed to have proved these further facts: When the defendant delivered the car to her it was in a defective and unsafe condition for driving because the threads of the lugs were stripped and the lugs were not screwed in tight. This the defendant knew or could have discovered by reasonable inspection, which it failed to make. The plaintiff was unaware of this condition and relied upon a representation of the defendant's agent that the car was in good condition and safe for immediate operation and use. In consequence of the defendant's negligence, the wheel came off by reason of the condition above referred to, which existed when the car was delivered to the plaintiff. The defendant claimed to have proved that while the car was being driven after its delivery to the plaintiff and prior to the accident no one had noticed anything unusual about its operation, that the defendant at no time had removed the rear wheel in question, and that it reasonably relied upon the skill and judgment of the Tire Company as an independent contractor and had no reason to suspect that its work was faulty in any particular.

The defendant assigns error in the court's failure to grant its request to charge that, in the absence of proof of facts which reasonably put the defendant on notice of any dangerous condition at the time it delivered the car to the plaintiff, the defendant was entitled to rely on the skill and judgment of the independent contractor, and that if there was any negligence in this case it was that of the latter for which the defendant is not liable. One of the grounds of negligence alleged and relied upon by the plaintiff was the defendant's failure to make a reasonable inspection of the wheels of the car before delivery. The question therefore is whether the fact that, prior to the delivery of the car to the plaintiff, the Tire Regrooving Company in changing the rear tires pursuant to the defendant's order had removed and then replaced the rear wheels entitled the defendant to the benefit of the defense of independent contractor embodied in the charge requested. If this action against the defendant had been predicated upon an injury negligently inflicted by the Tire Company during the performance of its work, this defense might well have availed the defendant. That is not the case before us, however, for here, before the injury occurred, the Tire Company had completed its work, possession and control of the car had been resumed by the defendant, and delivery made by it to the plaintiff. In a somewhat analogous...