DocketNumber: No. X07-CV98-0077338S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 12986, 30 Conn. L. Rptr. 380
Judges: BISHOP, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/12/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
A moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the court is satisfied from the pleadings and proffered documentation that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Additionally, in assessing a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Home Ins. Co v. Aetna Life Casualty Co.,
"The issue of whether a defendant owes a duty of care is an appropriate matter for summary judgment because the question is one of law." Pion v.Southern New England Telephone Co.,
The legal responsibility for maintaining premises in a reasonably safe condition depends upon who has control of those premises. The plaintiff asserts that either Thomas or Hall had control of the premises. The plaintiff alleges that Thomas was the general contractor onsite, maintained possession and control of the premises and, therefore, owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care. The principal claim of the plaintiff is that the defendants failed to ensure the safety of the scaffolding. Like the plaintiff, Thomas was a contractor hired by Hall. He has provided to the court an affidavit stating that he was not the general contractor at the site and that he had no control over the plaintiff or any of the other contractors or their work. The plaintiff has offered no legal or evidentiary foundation to the contrary. Thomas was no more the general contractor and had no more control over the construction site than the plaintiff himself. Although it is undisputed that the scaffolding belonged to Thomas, it is also undisputed that the scaffolding was erected by the plaintiff and his employee while neither Thomas nor Hall was even on the premises.1 Accordingly, Thomas did not owe any legal duty to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff claims that the defendant Hall, as the owner of the residence, owed the plaintiff a legal duty to ensure the safety of the work site. The plaintiff was an independent contractor building a chimney for Hall. "An independent contractor is one who, exercising an independent employment, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of his employer, except as to the result of his work." Francis v. Franklin Cafeteria,Inc.,
The plaintiff contends that Hall had a duty to inspect the scaffolding he erected to ensure that it was safe and to warn the plaintiff if it was unsafe. The general rule is that where the owner of premises employs an independent contractor to perform work on them, the contractor, not the owner, is liable for any losses resulting from negligence in the performance of the work. The basic premise is that the assumption and exercise of control over the offending area is deemed to be in the independent contractor. Darling v. Burrone Bros., Inc.,
Where there is no legal duty between the person alleging injury and the defendant, there can be no actionable negligence. Accordingly, the motions for summary judgment are granted.
BISHOP, J.