Rossi v. Stanback, 11297
| Decision Date | 22 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 11297,11297 |
| Citation | 626 A.2d 829,31 Conn.App. 703 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Vito A. ROSSI, Coadministrator (ESTATE OF Gaetano T. ROSSI), et al. v. William H. STANBACK et al. |
Kenneth John Laska, Plainville, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Andrew J. O'Keefe, with whom were Denise Rodosevich, Hartford, and, on the brief, Michael J. Walsh, Bridgeport, for appellees (defendants).
Before LAVERY, LANDAU and SCHALLER, JJ.
The plaintiffs 1 appeal from a judgment rendered on a jury verdict in favor of the defendants in a cause of action based on negligence. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly (1) refused to submit separate plaintiffs' verdict forms for each count of the complaint, and (2) charged the jury regarding foreseeability, imputed negligence and duty of care. We agree with the plaintiffs' first claim and reverse the judgment of the trial court. Therefore, we do not address the plaintiffs' remaining claims.
The jury could reasonably have found the following facts. On July 20, 1987, the defendant William Stanback was employed as a truck driver for the defendant Savin Brothers, Inc., a construction firm under contract with the state of Connecticut to widen Interstate 91 in Hartford. The decedent was employed as an inspector by C.E. McGuire. As part of the construction process, Savin transported loads of fill to the construction site. Rossi's duties were to inspect the loads of fill dumped on the site and to calculate the cubic yardage of fill deposited. John Santos was employed by Savin as a "dump man." As a dump man, Santos directed the truck drivers on the jobsite, among them Stanback, as they were backing up to dump the loads of fill. The direction was necessary because the truck drivers could not see directly behind their trucks as they were backing up. After the drivers had backed into the position as directed by the dump man, they would raise the truck bodies, drop the fill, and pull forward with the truck bodies raised to allow all the fill to fall from the trucks. The truck drivers would then stop, lower the truck bodies, and latch the tailgates. These maneuvers were directed by hand signals from the dump man to the truck drivers. A blast of a truck horn was a danger signal used by the drivers. Whenever a horn sounded, all truckers were to stop immediately.
On the day of the accident, Stanback drove onto the dumpsite, made a U-turn, stopped and waited for a signal from Santos. While Stanback got into position, Santos was directing another driver, Willie McDuffie, through his dumping routine. While Stanback was waiting and McDuffie was pulling forward to finish his dump, Rossi walked toward Santos. When Santos finished with McDuffie and turned toward Stanback, he saw that Stanback had begun to back up and was heading directly at Rossi. Santos immediately yelled to both Rossi and Stanback, but neither heard him because of the noise on the site. Santos then ran to McDuffie's truck and told him to sound his horn, which McDuffie did twice. Stanback did not heed the first warning. Rossi, however, heard the first blast and turned toward Stanback's truck. As he turned, Stanback's truck knocked him over and dragged him under the driver's side rear wheels. Stanback continued to back up. Stanback heard the second blast and stopped backing up. Santos ran to Stanback's truck and told him what had happened. Rossi, meanwhile, was caught between the first two sets of tires. Santos told Stanback to pull forward over Rossi so as to render medical attention. Stanback, however, backed up and over Rossi again. Shortly thereafter, Rossi died.
At trial, the plaintiffs, in arguments and a request to charge, requested the trial court to submit a plaintiff's verdict form on each count of the complaint. The trial court refused and issued only one plaintiffs' verdict form for the entire complaint. The trial court submitted three defendant's verdict forms to the jury.
The plaintiffs' first claim is that the trial court improperly refused to issue separate plaintiffs' verdict forms for each count of the complaint. We agree.
When a complaint contains more than one cause of action, a party has a right to separate verdicts on each cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rossi v. Stanback
...defendants. It did not provide the jury with the opportunity to find against the defendant Savin Brothers." Rossi v. Stanback, 31 Conn.App. 703, 706-707, 626 A.2d 829 (1993). Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court, and remanded the case for a new trial. Th......
- McCook v. Coutu
-
Rossi v. Stanback, 11297
...its deliberations, and (3) recharged the jury regarding proper lookout and due care. The following facts, set out in Rossi v. Stanback, 31 Conn.App. 703, 626 A.2d 829 (1993), are pertinent to the resolution of this appeal. "On July 20, 1987, the defendant William H. Stanback was employed as......
-
Rossi v. Stanback
...John Rose, Jr., Farmington, in opposition. The defendants' petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn.App. 703, 626 A.2d 829 (AC 11297), is limited to the following "Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial c......
-
The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
...35 Conn A 212, 645 A.2d 557, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 915, 648 A.2d 154 (1994) (en banc). 210. 230 Conn. 175, 644 A.2d 352 (1994). 211. 31 Conn. App. 703, 626 A.2d 829 (1994). 212. Id. at 180-81. 213. Id. at 181-82 (Berdon,J., dissenting). 214. 229 Conn. 224, A.2J. (1994). 215. 32 Conn. App.......
-
1993 Connecticut Tort Law Review
...157. Id. at 378. 158. Id. at 381. 159. 227 Conn. 926, 632 A.2d 704 (1993) 160. 229 Conn. 829, A.2d (1994). 161. Id. at 836-38. 162. 31 Conn.App. 703,626 A.2d 829 (1993), rev'd Conn. 175 (19M). 163. The trial court did submit three defendants'verdict forms to the jury: One finding for the de......