Citation Numbers: 47 A.2d 844, 133 Conn. 18, 165 A.L.R. 1251, 1946 Conn. LEXIS 128
Judges: Brown, Dickenson, Eixs, Ells, Jennings, Maltbie
Filed Date: 5/15/1946
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/3/2024
The defendant had installed a burglar 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 *Page 20 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.,
The finding that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the loss must stand unless a causal relation between that negligence and the plaintiff's injuries cannot reasonably be found. DeMunda v. Loomis,
The defendant's undertaking was to install a proper burglar alarm system which would, under the circumstances of this case, cause a bell over the entrance door to ring. It did not agree to afford further protection. In Nirdlinger v. American District Telegraph Co.,
The result we have reached makes it unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised in the appeal.
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to enter judgment for the defendant.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Nirdlinger v. American District Telegraph Co. , 245 Pa. 453 ( 1914 )
Genishevsky v. Fishbone , 109 Conn. 58 ( 1929 )
Donovan v. Connecticut Co. , 84 Conn. 531 ( 1911 )
Bown v. Waterbury Battery Co. , 129 Conn. 44 ( 1942 )
Wyer v. Sonitrol Security Systems, No. Cv-98-0578088 S (Aug.... , 25 Conn. L. Rptr. 300 ( 1999 )
Sharp v. Wyatt, Inc., No. 28 64 15 (Apr. 8, 1992) , 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 3327 ( 1992 )
prodliabrep-cch-p-13455-leons-bakery-incorporated-v-grinnell , 990 F.2d 44 ( 1993 )
Stelloh v. COTTAGE 83 , 52 Ill. App. 2d 168 ( 1964 )
Levine v. Wilson Co. , 16 Conn. Super. Ct. 404 ( 1950 )
Johnson v. Flammia , 169 Conn. 491 ( 1975 )
Driscoll v. General Nutrition Corp. , 34 F. Supp. 2d 789 ( 1999 )
Stow v. Peterson , 204 F. Supp. 2d 40 ( 2002 )
Ligouri v. Quintans, No. 318583 (Jun. 13, 1996) , 17 Conn. L. Rptr. 218 ( 1996 )
Jutzi-Johnson, Karen v. United States ( 2001 )
New England Variety Dist. v. Alarm SEC. Prot., Cv 95-... , 23 Conn. L. Rptr. 85 ( 1998 )
Mohammed Abdallah D/B/A Holyland Store v. Caribbean ... , 557 F.2d 61 ( 1977 )
Nicholas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Co., Inc. , 339 So. 2d 175 ( 1976 )
Central Alarm of Tucson v. Ganem , 116 Ariz. 74 ( 1977 )
Arrington v. Scipio, No. Cv 97-0406671s (Aug. 6, 2001) , 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10743 ( 2001 )
Doe v. British Universities North American Club , 788 F. Supp. 1286 ( 1992 )
McCane Sondock Detective Agency v. Penland Distributors, ... , 1975 Tex. App. LEXIS 2674 ( 1975 )
Magarian v. Bessoni , 160 Conn. 442 ( 1971 )
Wyer v. Sonitrol Security System of Hartford, Inc. , 46 Conn. Super. Ct. 101 ( 1999 )