Pribulo v. Chiarelli

• Decision Date: 15 December 1931
• Citation: 157 A. 420,114 Conn. 32
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: PRIBULO et al. v. CHIARELLI et al.

157 A. 420

114 Conn. 32

PRIBULO et al. v. CHIARELLI et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 15, 1931

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John Richards Booth Judge.

Action by Julius Pribulo and others against Louis Chiarelli and others, to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence. Judgment for the plaintiffs against certain defendants, and appeal by the plaintiff Pribulo.

No error.

Contract reserving superintendence of building constructed in owners held not to make subcontractor agent of owners and owners liable for subcontractor's negligence.

Cornelius J. Danaher, of Meriden, for appellant.

Charles A. Hallock, of Danbury, for appellees.

Argued before MALTBIE, C. J and HAINES, HINMAN, BAKKS, and AVERY JJ.

MALTBIE, C.J.

The plaintiff, a pedestrian, was injured by being struck by a board thrown by the defendant Louis Chiarelli from the roof of a building in course of reconstruction, and brought this action to recover for his injuries against Chiarelli, John Sacco, and Domenic and Frances Gigliotti. Frances Gigliotti owned the building, and Domenic Gigliotti, her husband, acting as her agent, made a contract with Chiarelli Brothers for the construction of an additional third story. Chiarelli Brothers sublet the carpentry work on the building to Louis Chiarelli and Sacco, and Louis Chiarelli was engaged upon this work when the board was thrown. The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff against Louis Chiarelli and Sacco but for the defendants Gigliotti on the ground that the contract with Chiarelli Brothers made them independent contractors for the work. The claim made upon this appeal is that the Gigliottis were also liable because the agreement with Chiarelli Brothers did not make them independent contractors and Louis Chiarelli was the agent of the Gigliottis in the work he was doing when the board was thrown. The only ground for questioning the correctness of the trial court's conclusion arises from the fact that the specifications annexed to the contract with Chiarelli Brothers contained a provision as follows: " The work is all to be performed in a most thorough manner, and with materials the best of their several kinds, as herein described, or necessary and under the superintendence of owner."

The specifications begin with two pages of general conditions in printed form evidently prepared for general use, and the provision quoted is among them. It was not, however, printed in full; there being a blank where the word " owner" is inserted, in typewriting. Throughout the general conditions there are other similar blanks which have been filled in the same way. Thus the contractor is required to provide competent foremen to whom instructions can be given by the owner; if work is to be tested or approved notice is to be given to the owner, and if it is covered up before such test or approval, the owner may require it to be uncovered for examination; the owner may grant extensions of time where the work is delayed, if...