Sequenzia v. Guerrieri Masonry Inc., No. 18364.

• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Writing for the Court: ROGERS
• Citation: 298 Conn. 816,9 A.3d 322
• Parties: John SEQUENZIA et al. v. GUERRIERI MASONRY, INC., et al.
• Docket Number: No. 18364.
• Decision Date: 09 November 2010

9 A.3d 322
298 Conn. 816

John SEQUENZIA et al.
v.
GUERRIERI MASONRY, INC., et al.

No. 18364.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Sept. 8, 2010.
Decided Nov. 9, 2010.

9 A.3d 322

Kenneth J. Bartschi, with whom were Brendon P. Levesque, Hartford, and, on the brief, Nathan J. Buchok, certified legal intern, for the appellant (named plaintiff).

William J. Melley III, Hartford, for the appellee (named defendant).

ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER, McLACHLAN, EVELEIGH and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.

NORCOTT, J.

298 Conn. 818

The named plaintiff, John Sequenzia (plaintiff), appeals, following our grant of his petition for certification,¹ from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's judgment, rendered after a jury trial, awarding the plaintiff damages in the amount of $591,680.85 on his common-law negligence

9 A.3d 323

claim against the named defendant, Guerrieri Masonry, Inc. (defendant).² Sequenzia v. Guerrieri Masonry, Inc., 113 Conn.App. 448, 449, 967 A.2d 508 (2009). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly decided this case based on a claim of instructional impropriety that the defendant had abandoned by failing to raise it on appeal. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The record and the Appellate Court opinion reveal the following relevant facts that the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history. "The town of Glastonbury contracted with Hodess Building Company (Hodess) to construct an addition to an assisted living building. Hodess, which acted as the general contractor

298 Conn. 819

for the job, entered into a subcontract with the defendant to perform masonry work on the site. On the morning of November 14, 2003, the plaintiff arrived on site to deliver a truckload of bricks. It was a windy day. A Hodess employee pointed to the area where the plaintiff should deliver the bricks, and the plaintiff moved his truck to that area. Shortly thereafter, Corrado Guerrieri, the owner of the defendant, arrived on site and, seeing that there were power lines nearby, suggested that the plaintiff move his truck because it was too close to the power lines. Despite knowing that there was a sign posted on his truck that stated 'look up keep boom 15 feet from power lines,' the plaintiff responded that he could make the delivery from that location. Using a boom attached to the truck, which was operated through a control box, the plaintiff began to remove the pallets of bricks from the truck, but, during the process, the boom came into contact with the power lines, shocking him and causing very serious injuries. Guerrieri immediately grabbed the control box and pulled it from the plaintiff's hand. There was evidence that the plaintiff's injuries were painful, disfiguring and disabling.

"The plaintiff brought this action against Hodess and the defendant. Prior to trial, Hodess and the plaintiff reached a settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew its claims against Hodess. The case between the plaintiff and the defendant proceeded to be tried on a single count of common-law negligence. The court charged the jury on two specifications of negligence, as alleged in the complaint, one of which was a failure to warn.³

298 Conn. 820

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendant to be 30 percent negligent, Hodess 25 percent negligent and the plaintiff 45 percent negligent. Following the jury's verdict, the defendant renewed its earlier

9 A.3d 324

motion for a directed verdict and filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial [posttrial motions], arguing, in part, that the court improperly had charged the jury on the failure to warn specification of common-law negligence and that there was no evidence to support such a charge. The [posttrial] motions were denied." Id., at 449-51, 967 A.2d 508. Although the trial court noted that the failure to warn charge was improper because there was no evidence to support giving that instruction, the court denied the motion for a new trial "since [the failure to warn charge] was not the sole basis of the plaintiff's claim, and the court charged on alternative grounds on which the defendant could be held liable...."

The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court. Sequenzia v. Guerrieri Masonry, Inc., supra, 113 Conn.App. at 449, 967 A.2d 508. On appeal, the defendant claimed in its brief that the trial court improperly had: (1) admitted into evidence an excerpt of a contract between the defendant and Hodess; (2) concluded that the excerpt created a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (3) concluded that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to prevent accidents; (4) allowed the plaintiff to benefit from the contract between the defendant and Hodess; and (5) permitted the plaintiff's counsel to argue outside the scope of rebuttal closing argument.

The Appellate Court did not address the defendant's claims raised in its appellate brief but, instead, determined that the dispositive issue was the instructional impropriety claim raised in its posttrial motions. Id. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court

298 Conn. 821

and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the trial court improperly had denied the defendant's motion for a new trial on the instructional impropriety claim because "it [was] possible that the jury could have based its verdict on a...