Roberts v. Rosenblatt
| Decision Date | 20 January 1959 |
| Citation | 148 A.2d 142,146 Conn. 110 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert ROBERTS v. Jacob ROSENBLATT et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Leo V. Gaffney, with whom was Bernard D. Gaffney, New Britain, for the appellants (defendants).
Milton M. Koskoff, with whom was Edward J. McMahon, Plainville, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Before DALY, C. J., and BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ.
The plaintiff was a member of the fire department of the city of Bristol, sustained severe and permanently disabling injuries about 3 o'clock on the morning of January 31, 1954, when he slipped and fell on a patch of ice on a paved walk running from the street to the rear of a house owned by the defendants on Stafford Street in Bristol. With other firemen, he had responded to a telephoned alarm of fire on the premises. The house contained five apartments, which were rented furnished. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendants, alleging negligence in the maintenance of a dangerous condition on the walk and in the failure to warn the plaintiff of it. The defendants have appealed from a verdict for the plaintiff which the trial court refused to set aside.
The defendants requested the court to charge the jury, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was a licensee upon the defendants' property and that the duty which the defendants owed to the plaintiff was limited by that relationship. Instead of so charging, the trial judge instructed the jury that whether the plaintiff was a licensee or an invitee upon the premises was a question of fact for their determination. The court defined an invitee as a business visitor who enters or remains on another's property for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings between them. The court then proceeded to point out that it was the business of the plaintiff in the discharge of his duties as a fireman to enter upon the defendants' premises and to do whatever was necessary to confine or extinguish such fire as existed there and that it was for the benefit of the defendants in the protection of their property that this be done. In addition, the court stated that if the jury found that the call to the fire department had been made by one of the tenants in the defendants' apartment house at the request of the agent in charge thereof, the jury would be justified in determining that the plaintiff was a business visitor to whom the defendants owed the duty of keeping the premises reasonably safe, but that if the jury found that the tenant had not made the call or that, if she had made it, she had not been requested to do so by the owners' agent or the agent did not have authority to make such a request, then the jury would be warranted in finding that the plaintiff was a licensee. The court then defined the duty owed by a property owner to a licensee in substantial accord with the rule enunciated in Laube v. Stevenson, 137 Conn. 469, 473, 78 A.2d 693, 25 A.L.R.2d 592, and restated in Lubenow v. Cook, 137 Conn. 611, 613, 79 A.2d 826.
Ordinarily, the status of one who sustains injury while upon the property of another is a question of fact. Dickau v. Rafala, 141 Conn. 121, 124, 104 A.2d 214; Girard v. Kabatznick, 128 Conn. 520, 525, 24 A.2d 257; Knapp v. Connecticut Theatrical Corporation, 122 Conn. 413, 417, 190 A. 291. Where, however, the facts essential to the determination of the plaintiff's status are not in dispute, a legal question is presented. Ward v. Avery, 113 Conn. 394, 396, 155 A. 502; Rooney v. Woolworth, 74 Conn. 720, 723...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walters v. Sloan
...365 Mo. 304, 282 S.W.2d 445, 447; Baxley v. Williams Construction Co. (1958) 98 Ga.App. 662, 106 S.E.2d 799, 805; Roberts v. Rosenblatt (1959) 146 Conn. 110, 148 A.2d 142, 144; Scheurer v. Trustees of Open Bible Church (1963) 175 Ohio St. 163, 192 N.E.2d 38, 43; see also Annot. 86 A.L.R.2d ......
-
Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp.
...duty. We concluded that limited liability was appropriate in Furstein v. Hill, supra, at 615, 590 A.2d 939, and Roberts v. Rosenblatt, 146 Conn. 110, 112-13, 148 A.2d 142 (1959), because (1) the nature of a firefighter's work is inherently hazardous and the choice of that occupation is akin......
-
Sepega v. Delaura
...the history of the firefighter's rule in this state as follows: "This court first applied the firefighter's rule in Roberts v. Rosenblatt , 146 Conn. 110, 148 A.2d 142 (1959). In that case, the plaintiff firefighter, who had responded to an alarm, sought to recover from the defendant landow......
-
Carpenter v. O'Day
...Moravec v. Moravec, 216 Neb. 412, 343 N.W.2d 762 (1984); Aravanis v. Eisenberg, 237 Md. 242, 206 A.2d 148 (1965); Roberts v. Rosenblatt, 146 Conn. 110, 148 A.2d 142 (1959); Wax v. Co-operative Refinery Asso., 154 Neb. 805, 49 N.W.2d 707 (1951); Burroughs Adding Mach. Co. v. Fryar, Tenn.Supr......
-
Survey of Connecticut Tort Law: 1991
...at the restaurant prior to beginning her shift. 72. 219 Conn. 1, 591 A.2d 1261 (1991). 73. 218 Conn. 610,615,590 A.2d 939 (1991). 74. 146 Conn. 110, 112,148 A.2d 142 75. The importance of the plaintiff's status as an invitee or licensee was heightened by the plaintiff's failure to call the ......