Nuzzo v. Connecticut Steel Co.

• Decision Date: 31 May 1960
• Citation: 147 Conn. 398,161 A.2d 791
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Salvatore NUZZO et al. v. CONNECTICUT STEEL COMPANY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 791

161 A.2d 791

147 Conn. 398

Salvatore NUZZO et al. v. CONNECTICUT STEEL COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 31, 1960.

Dennis N. Garvey, New Haven, with whom were Arthur B. O'Keefe and John W. Colleran, New Haven, for appellants (plaintiffs).

John E. McNerney, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Francis J. Moran and Albert R. Moquet, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JJ.

MURPHY, Associate Justice.

The plaintiffs have appealed from the denial of their motions to set aside a directed verdict for the defendant and for a new trial. The motion for a new trial is superfluous and will be disregarded. The issue for determination is whether the trial court abused its discretion in the action it took upon the motion to set aside the verdict. Mihaley v. Edwards, 145 Conn. 727, 728, 141 A.2d 243.

The named plaintiff, hereinafter called the plaintiff, claimed to have been injured on April 15, 1955, when the steel framework of a building in Hamden on which he was installing a roof collapsed. He was an employee of the roofing subcontractor, the coplaintiff. The defendant, also a subcontractor, had erected the framework. Steel trusses extended from a center girder to each side wall of the one-story cement block structure which was the last of a group of stores comprising a shopping center. The trusses were set about two feet apart, and each was temporarily attached to the center girder by a single bolt. Each rested, at the other end, on a steel plate atop a side wall. A cross brace was placed between each pair of trusses to bridge them. Two additional cross braces were needed to ensure the stability of the trusses but had not been installed. The trusses were to be welded to the center girder. The framework without the permanent attachments was shaky and unstable as well as unsafe to walk on or to place loads on. The plaintiff's employer caused several bundles of sheet steel decking for the roof to be hoisted by crane onto the trusses. They were placed at different spots to distribute the weight. The plaintiff was on the trusses guiding the bundles into place when the trusses collapsed. He and the sheet steel fell twenty feet to the cement floor. He sued to recover for his injuries, alleging negligence by the defendant in erecting the steel framework in an improper and defective manner. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant rested and moved for a directed verdict. The court granted the motion.

We test the reasonableness of the court's action in the light of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. Lurier v. Danbury Bus Corporation, 144 Conn. 544, 547, 135 A.2d 597. Upon this basis, we are satisfied that from the direct evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it sufficient facts were available to require the submission of the question of the defendant's negligence to the jury. The evidence that the defendant had not securely bridged the trusses, as it had on the other stores in the center, before the heavy loads of steel decking were hoisted onto the trusses would be of particular significance in the evaluation of the defendant's...