Whitfield v. Cooper, 121141
| Decision Date | 23 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 121141,121141 |
| Citation | 298 A.2d 50,30 Conn.Supp. 47 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Mae WHITFIELD, Administratrix (ESTATE of Julius C. WHITFIELD), et al. v. Herman COOPER et al. |
Jacobs, Jacobs, Grudberg & Clifford, New Haven, for plaintiffs.
Shiff & Shiff, New Haven, and James O'C. Shea, New Haven, for defendant Cooper.
Cotter, Cotter & Sohon, Bridgeport, for defendant Theroux.
In September, 1968, the defendant Herman Cooper brought his automobile to the shop of the defendant C. Kenneth Theroux for repairs. Cooper was supplied with an automobile by Theroux for his use while his automobile was being repaired. A few days later, the automobile, operated by Cooper, was involved in a one-car accident. The plaintiffs were passengers in the car and suffered serious injuries, and the plaintiff administratrix' decedent, Julius Whitfield, died of the injuries suffered by him.
The third count of the complaint, to which the defendant Theroux demurs, is directed against the defendant Theroux and sounds in strict liability.
The thrust of the defendant Theroux's demurrer is that the plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action sounding in strict liability in that the transaction between Cooper and Theroux with regard to the automobile involved in the accident was not a sale and the doctrine of strict liability does not apply in nonsale situations.
Paragraph 1 of the third count of the complaint alleges that the defendant Theroux 'rented or leased or bailed for consideration' an automobile owned by him to the defendant Cooper. Paragraph 2 alleges that the defendant Theroux 'was in the business of renting or leasing or bailing said automobile for consideration and said automobile was expected to and did reach the defendant Herman Cooper, the plaintiff's decedent Julius C. Whitfield and the plaintiff Joseph Whitfield without substantial change in the condition in which it was rented or leased or bailed for consideration.'
The demurrer admits all well-pleaded facts. The allegations are entitled to the same favorable construction as a trier would be required to give in admitting evidence under them. If facts provable under the allegations would support a cause of action, the demurrer must fail. The court will not, in passing on the demurrer, consider other grounds than those specified. Cyr v. Brookfield, 153 Conn. 261, 263, 216 A.2d 198.
In support of his position the defendant Theroux cites Rossignol v. Danbury School of Aernoautics, Inc., 154 Conn. 549, 227 A.2d 418, as restricting the doctrine of strict liability in this state to cases involving a sale. He also cites the Restatement (Second), 2 Torts § 402 A, comment i. 1 It is true that in Rossignol the court was addressing itself to a case involving a sale. But that is not to say that the Supreme Court in that case was saying that the doctrine of strict liability applied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCulloch v. Fox & Jacobs, Inc.
..."essentially commercial in character." Armstrong Rubber Company, 570 S.W.2d at 377. Some of the cases cited were Whitfield v. Cooper, 30 Conn.Supp. 47, 298 A.2d 50 (1972); Nawakowski v. Hoppe Tire Co., 39 Ill.App.3d 155, 349 N.E.2d 578 (1976); Fulbright v. Klamath Gas Co., 271 Or. 449, 533 ......
-
Francioni v. Gibsonia Truck Corp.
...lease or bailment, for use and consumption by the public. Link v. Sun Oil Co., Ind.App., 312 N.E.2d 126, 130 (1974); Whitfield v. Cooper, 30 Conn.Sup. 47, 298 A.2d 50 (1972); Delaney v. Towmotor Corp., 339 F.2d 4, 6 (2d Cir. 1964). Where the fundamental principles are applicable, the imposi......
-
Armstrong Rubber Co. v. Urquidez
...in other jurisdictions which extend the doctrine of strict liability in tort to bailment transactions. Cf. Whitfield v. Cooper, 30 Conn.Sup. 47, 298 A.2d 50 (1972); Nowakowski v. Hoppe Tire Co., 39 Ill.App.3d 155, 349 N.E.2d 578 (5th Dist. 1974); Bainter v. Lamoine LP Gas Co., 24 Ill.App.3d......
-
Hoffman v. Loos & Dilworth, Inc.
...lease or bailment, for use and consumption by the public. Link v. Sun Oil Co. Ind.App. , 312 N.E.2d 126, 130 (1974); Whitfield v. Cooper, 30 Conn.Sup. 47, 298 A.2d 50 (1972); Delaney v. Towmotor Corp., 339 F.2d 4, 6 (2d Cir.1964). Where the fundamental principles are applicable, the imposit......