Steele v. J and S Metals, Inc., 189061
| Decision Date | 14 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 189061,189061 |
| Citation | 32 Conn.Supp. 17,335 A.2d 629 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Dewey J. STEELE et al. v. J AND S METALS, INC., et al. |
Robinson, Robinson & Cole, Hartford, for plaintiffs.
Dahlmeyer, Fretel & Malec, West Haven, for defendants.
This is a negligence action brought by the plaintiffs, Dewey J. Steele and Checklift Truck Maintenance, Inc. Steele is the president of Checklift and, in the course of his duties for his employer, was on premises allegedly owned and controlled by both defendants, J and S Metals, Inc., and J and S. Realty, when he received personal injuries allegedly through their negligence.
The demurrer by both defendants is to the cause of action set forth on behalf of Checklift, which alleges a loss of business because of the injuries received by Steele. Therefore, the precise issue raised by the demurrer is whether an employer can maintain a cause of action against a tort-feasor for loss of profits directly resulting from an injury to a key employee who, while on his employer's business, was injured through the negligence of the tort-feasor. It appears that there have been no Connecticut cases dealing with this specific question.
The theory under which the claim in issue is made is found in the early English common law. The common-law rule was based on the concept that the servant had a chattel relationship to the master and therefore any injury to the chattel was an injury to a property interest of the master, thus giving rise to an action by the master against the responsible party. The historical development of this sort of action from the Middle Ages to the present was fully discussed by the English Court of Appeal in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Hambrook, (1956) 2 QB 641. See note, 57 A.L.R.2d 802. It was the conclusion of the English court that the action should be confined, as originally conceived, to the situation where the injured employee can be regarded as a member of the master's household. The court held that the doctrine was an anomaly which does not fit in with the principles of law as now understood and that it should not be extended beyond the master and household servant situation.
The authorities in the field seem to agree generally on the principle that if an employee is intentionally harmed, the employer may recover from the wrongdoer for the loss caused him because of his being deprived of the employee's services, but that the employer cannot recover if the injury is inflicted through mere negligence. 1 Harper & James, Tort § 6.10; Prosser, Torts (4th Ed.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawrence v. O & G Indus., Inc.
...153. In so concluding, the court followed numerous sister state decisions and the Superior Court decision in Steele v. J & S Metals, Inc., 32 Conn.Supp. 17, 335 A.2d 629 (1974), and observed that beyond the foreseeability of the harm suffered by the plaintiff, the court "must proceed to mak......
-
National Fruit Product Co., Inc. v. Baltimore and Ohio R. Co.
...Offshore Rental Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 22 Cal.3d 157, 583 P.2d 721, 148 Cal.Rptr. 867 (1978) (In Bank); Steele v. J & S Metals, Inc., 32 Conn.Supp. 17, 335 A.2d 629 (1974); Chelsea Moving & Trucking Co. v. Ross Towboat Co., 280 Mass. 282, 182 N.E. 477 (1932); B.V. Merrow Co. v. Stephen......
-
offshore Rental Co. v. Continental Oil Co.
...1927) 21 F.2d 313; Phoenix Professional Hockey Club, Inc. v. Hirmer (1972) 108 Ariz. 482, 502 P.2d 164, 165; Steele v. J and S Metals, Inc. (1974) 32 Conn.Sup. 17, 335 A.2d 629; Frank Horton & Co. v. Diggs (Mo.Ct.App. 1976) 544 S.W.2d 313; ITT v. Public Service Elec. Co. (1914) 86 N.J.L. 26......
-
Conn. Pipe Trades Health Fund v. Philip Morris
...for workers compensation payments following injury caused by defendant to one of contractor's employees); Steele v. J & S Metals, Inc., 32 Conn.Supp. 17, 335 A.2d 629 (Sup.Ct.1974) (dismissing claim brought by employer for lost profits resulting from an injury to a key employee who was negl......
-
The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and the Limits of Civil Liability
...954 (D. Del. 1993); In re Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 791 F. Supp. 669, 677 (E.D. Mich. 1992). 57. See, e.g., Steele v. J and S Metals, Inc., 335 A.2d 629, 630 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1974); PPG Indus., Inc. v. Bean Dredging, 447 So. 2d 1058, 1060-61 (La. 1984); Ferguson v. Green Island Contracting ......