Vastola v. Conn. Protective System Inc.

• Citation: 47 A.2d 844,133 Conn. 18
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 15 May 1946
• Parties: VASTOLA v. CONNECTICUT PROTECTIVE SYSTEM, Inc.

133 Conn. 18

47 A.2d 844

VASTOLA

v.CONNECTICUT PROTECTIVE SYSTEM, Inc.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 15, 1946.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Devlin, Judge.

Action by Robert S. Vastola against Connecticut Protective System, Inc., to recover upon an implied warranty of an electric burglar alarm and for negligence in its installation, resulting in loss of a sum of money by burglary. Trial to the court resulted in judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Error and case remanded with direction.

Plaintiff's motion for reargument denied.

Bernard P. Kopkind, John J. Mezzanotte, and Clarence A. Hadden, all of New Haven, for appellant.

Samuel H. Platcow, of New Haven, for appellee.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.

ELLS, Judge.

The defendant had installed a burglar alarm system in the plaintiff's restaurant premises. During the early morning hours of May 23, 1944, after the restaurant had been securely locked and the alarm set, the premises were burglarized and the sum of $406.81 in cash was taken therefrom. Entrance was effected through a skylight which had been wired by the defendant as part of the system installed by it. Cleats or slats to which cross wires were attached were loosened and removed from the side of the well, so that a space large enough to permit entry was effected without breaking or touching the wires, and, consequently, the alarm bell over the front entrance did not ring. The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for the loss which he sustained by the theft of money from the restaurant. The trial court concluded that the defendant was negligent in the installation of the system and that its negligence was a substantial factor in causing the loss sustained by the plaintiff. The defendant has appealed.

Error is not assigned as to the court's conclusion that the defendant was negligent. The claim is that the facts found do not support the conclusion that the failure of the bell to ring was the proximate cause of the loss. Toward the end of the finding of subordinate facts, the court found that ‘As a result of the improper installation of said burglar alarm system by the defendant company the plaintiff sustained a loss of $406.81.’ This is not a finding of a subordinate fact, however, but is a conclusion of fact, and it cannot stand unless the subordinate facts found reasonably and logically support it. Conn.App.Proc. § 96; Bown v. Waterbury Battery Co., 129 Conn. 44, 47, 26 A.2d 467, 150 A.L.R. 1210, and cases cited.

The finding that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the loss must stand unless and causal relation between that negligence and the plaintiff's injuries cannot reasonably be found. DeMunda v. Loomis, 127 Conn. 313, 315, 16 A.2d 578; Mahoney v. Beatman, 110 Conn. 184, 195, 196, 147 A. 762, 66 A.L.R. 1121. The only facts found by the trial court from which it might infer such a causal relation are that the restaurant premises are located in a thickly populated residence and business area in New Haven and that the building in which the restaurant is located contains six apartments, which were fully occupied. The question is not whether there could be a causal relationship between the failure of the bell to ring, caused by the defendant's negligence, and the burglary, which directly caused the loss, but whether the meager facts found in this particular case reasonably support an inference that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of...