Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gazo v. City of Stamfordgreen2 sentences2021The nondelegable duty doctrine stands for the proposition that an employer ‘‘may contract out the performance of [its] nondelegable duty, but may not contract out [its] ultimate legal responsibility.’’ (Emphasis in original.) Gazo v. Stamford, 255 Conn. 245, 255 , 765 A.2d 505 (2001). 2021The nondelegable duty doctrine stands for the proposition that an employer ‘‘may contract out the performance of [its] nondelegable duty, but may not contract out [its] ultimate legal responsibility.’’ (Emphasis in original.) Gazo v. Stamford, 255 Conn. 245, 255 , 765 A.2d 505 (2001). | 2 | 9 |
Smith v. Town of Greenwichgreen2 sentences2014First, the court stated that the issue before the jury was not the negligence of Horizon, but the negligence of the defendant, indicating later in the memorandum of decision that the operative complaint ‘‘contain[ed] no reference to Horizon, or its employees . . . or that Horizon was negligent, and that, therefore, [the defendant] was liable for Horizon’s negligence.’’ Second, the court disagreed with the plaintiff’s asser- tion that the nondelegable duty doctrine was ‘‘a means of imposing vicarious liability on a landowner for any negligent activity on its property by an independent contracto 2014First, the court stated that the issue before the jury was not the negligence of Horizon, but the negligence of the defendant, indicating later in the memorandum of decision that the operative complaint ‘‘contain[ed] no reference to Horizon, or its employees . . . or that Horizon was negligent, and that, therefore, [the defendant] was liable for Horizon’s negligence.’’ Second, the court disagreed with the plaintiff’s asser- tion that the nondelegable duty doctrine was ‘‘a means of imposing vicarious liability on a landowner for any negligent activity on its property by an independent contracto | 1 | 4 |
Garcia v. Cohengreen2 sentences2022See Garcia v. Cohen, 188 Conn. App. 380, 386 , 204 A.3d 1245 (2019) (in light of defendants’ special defense of contributory negligence, it was unclear whether jury ‘‘found that the defendants were not negligent or that the plaintiff was more than 50 percent negligent’’), rev’d, 335 Conn. 3 , 225 A.3d 653 (2020). 2022See Garcia v. Cohen, 188 Conn. App. 380, 386 , 204 A.3d 1245 (2019) (in light of defendants’ special defense of contributory negligence, it was unclear whether jury ‘‘found that the defendants were not negligent or that the plaintiff was more than 50 percent negligent’’), rev’d, 335 Conn. 3 , 225 A.3d 653 (2020). | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Cohengreen2 sentences2022The appeal is dismissed. 1 Judge Lavine issued a dissenting opinion, in which he expressed his view that ‘‘this case falls outside the purview of the nondelegable duty doctrine’’ because the defendants did not ‘‘attempt to dodge or to deny responsibility for the condition of the stairway on which the plaintiff fell.’’ Garcia v. Cohen, supra, 204 Conn. App. 39 (Lavine, J., dissenting). 2 In Garcia v. Cohen, supra, 335 Conn. 3 , we addressed whether the Appellate Court properly declined to review the plaintiff’s instructional claim under the general verdict rule ‘‘because the plaintiff had faile 2022A majority of the Appellate Court agreed, holding that ‘‘[t]he proposed nondelegable duty charge was relevant to the issues in this case, was an accurate statement of the law, and was reasonably supported by the evidence adduced at trial.’’ Garcia v. Cohen, 204 Conn. App. 25 , 35, 253 A.3d 46 (2021).1 The Appellate Court further determined that the instructional impropriety was not harmless in light of our reasoning in Garcia v. Cohen, 335 Conn. 3 , 23-24, 225 A.3d 653 (2020),2 that ‘‘the jury could have concluded that the [independent contractors], rather than the defendants, acted negligentl | 1 | 1 |
Bhinder v. Sun Co.green2 sentences2006When a property owner’s liability to the plaintiff for the wrongful conduct of an independent contractor legally cannot be apportioned, then there is no reason to apportion fault between the property owner and the contractor in an apportionment proceeding. 10 Finally, Greenwich Acquisition argues that, in implementing tort reform, the legislature intended to impose “ ‘limitations on a negligent defendant’s obligation to pay damages.’ Bhinder v. Sun Co., 246 Conn. 223, 232 [ 717 A.2d 202 ] (1998).” See also Donner v. Kearse, 234 Conn. 660, 668-69 , 662 A.2d 1269 (1995). 2006When a property owner’s liability to the plaintiff for the wrongful conduct of an independent contractor legally cannot be apportioned, then there is no reason to apportion fault between the property owner and the contractor in an apportionment proceeding. 10 Finally, Greenwich Acquisition argues that, in implementing tort reform, the legislature intended to impose “ ‘limitations on a negligent defendant’s obligation to pay damages.’ Bhinder v. Sun Co., 246 Conn. 223, 232 [ 717 A.2d 202 ] (1998).” See also Donner v. Kearse, 234 Conn. 660, 668-69 , 662 A.2d 1269 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Ray v. Schneidergreen2 sentences2001See Ray v. Schneider, 16 Conn. App. 660, 665 , 548 A.2d 461 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 822 , 551 A.2d 756 (1988) (“an employer may not contract away his liability to the general public for harm caused in the performance of [a nondelegable duty]”); U.S. Security Services Corp. v. Ramada Inn, Inc., 665 So. 2d 268, 270 (Fla. App. 1995) (“a landowner may contract out the performance of his non-delegable duty to an independent contractor, but he cannot contract out of his ultimate legal responsibility for the proper performance of his duty by the independent contractor; the landowner is always respo 2001See Ray v. Schneider, 16 Conn. App. 660, 665 , 548 A.2d 461 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 822 , 551 A.2d 756 (1988) (“an employer may not contract away his liability to the general public for harm caused in the performance of [a nondelegable duty]”); U.S. Security Services Corp. v. Ramada Inn, Inc., 665 So. 2d 268, 270 (Fla. App. 1995) (“a landowner may contract out the performance of his non-delegable duty to an independent contractor, but he cannot contract out of his ultimate legal responsibility for the proper performance of his duty by the independent contractor; the landowner is always respo | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Hayesgreen2 sentences2001See Ray v. Schneider, 16 Conn. App. 660, 665 , 548 A.2d 461 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 822 , 551 A.2d 756 (1988) (“an employer may not contract away his liability to the general public for harm caused in the performance of [a nondelegable duty]”); U.S. Security Services Corp. v. Ramada Inn, Inc., 665 So. 2d 268, 270 (Fla. App. 1995) (“a landowner may contract out the performance of his non-delegable duty to an independent contractor, but he cannot contract out of his ultimate legal responsibility for the proper performance of his duty by the independent contractor; the landowner is always respo 2001See Ray v. Schneider, 16 Conn. App. 660, 665 , 548 A.2d 461 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 822 , 551 A.2d 756 (1988) (“an employer may not contract away his liability to the general public for harm caused in the performance of [a nondelegable duty]”); U.S. Security Services Corp. v. Ramada Inn, Inc., 665 So. 2d 268, 270 (Fla. App. 1995) (“a landowner may contract out the performance of his non-delegable duty to an independent contractor, but he cannot contract out of his ultimate legal responsibility for the proper performance of his duty by the independent contractor; the landowner is always respo | 1 | 1 |
Ray v. Schneidergreen2 sentences2001See Ray v. Schneider, 16 Conn. App. 660, 665 , 548 A.2d 461 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 822 , 551 A.2d 756 (1988) (“an employer may not contract away his liability to the general public for harm caused in the performance of [a nondelegable duty]”); U.S. Security Services Corp. v. Ramada Inn, Inc., 665 So. 2d 268, 270 (Fla. App. 1995) (“a landowner may contract out the performance of his non-delegable duty to an independent contractor, but he cannot contract out of his ultimate legal responsibility for the proper performance of his duty by the independent contractor; the landowner is always respo 2001See Ray v. Schneider, 16 Conn. App. 660, 665 , 548 A.2d 461 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 822 , 551 A.2d 756 (1988) (“an employer may not contract away his liability to the general public for harm caused in the performance of [a nondelegable duty]”); U.S. Security Services Corp. v. Ramada Inn, Inc., 665 So. 2d 268, 270 (Fla. App. 1995) (“a landowner may contract out the performance of his non-delegable duty to an independent contractor, but he cannot contract out of his ultimate legal responsibility for the proper performance of his duty by the independent contractor; the landowner is always respo | 1 | 1 |
US SEC. Services Corp. v. Ramada Inn, Inc.green1 sentence2001See Ray v. Schneider, 16 Conn. App. 660, 665 , 548 A.2d 461 , cert. denied, 209 Conn. 822 , 551 A.2d 756 (1988) (“an employer may not contract away his liability to the general public for harm caused in the performance of [a nondelegable duty]”); U.S. Security Services Corp. v. Ramada Inn, Inc., 665 So. 2d 268, 270 (Fla. App. 1995) (“a landowner may contract out the performance of his non-delegable duty to an independent contractor, but he cannot contract out of his ultimate legal responsibility for the proper performance of his duty by the independent contractor; the landowner is always respo | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MacHado v. City of Hartford
green
2 sentences2021The nondelegable duty doctrine is well established. ‘‘[T]he owner or occupier of premises owes invitees a nondelegable duty to exercise ordinary care for the safety of such persons.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gazo v. Stamford, 255 Conn. 245, 257 , 765 A.2d 505 (2001). ‘‘[T]he nondelegable duty doctrine means that [the employer] may contract out the performance of [its] nondelegable duty, but may not contract out [its] ultimate legal responsibility.’’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Machado v. Hartford, 292 Conn. 364 , 371-72, 972 A.2d 724 (2009). 2021The nondelegable duty doctrine is well established. ‘‘[T]he owner or occupier of premises owes invitees a nondelegable duty to exercise ordinary care for the safety of such persons.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gazo v. Stamford, 255 Conn. 245, 257 , 765 A.2d 505 (2001). ‘‘[T]he nondelegable duty doctrine means that [the employer] may contract out the performance of [its] nondelegable duty, but may not contract out [its] ultimate legal responsibility.’’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Machado v. Hartford, 292 Conn. 364 , 371-72, 972 A.2d 724 (2009). | 3 | 2013–2021 |
Sola v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. 1 It should be noted that Robert Cohen did not mention that he hired individuals to help him maintain his property until the plaintiff’s counsel asked him on direct examination. 2 This case is factually distinguishable from Sola v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 152 Conn. App. 732 , 100 A.3d 864 , cert. denied, 314 Conn. 941 , 103 A.3d 165 (2014), in which this court concluded that the trial court had misconstrued and misapplied the nondelegable duty doctrine. 2021For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. 1 It should be noted that Robert Cohen did not mention that he hired individuals to help him maintain his property until the plaintiff’s counsel asked him on direct examination. 2 This case is factually distinguishable from Sola v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 152 Conn. App. 732 , 100 A.3d 864 , cert. denied, 314 Conn. 941 , 103 A.3d 165 (2014), in which this court concluded that the trial court had misconstrued and misapplied the nondelegable duty doctrine. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Futterleib v. Mr. Happy's, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021First, in Wasko v. Farley, 108 Conn. App. 156 , 169-70, 947 A.2d 978 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 922 , 958 A.2d 155 (2008), and Futterleib v. Mr. Happy’s, Inc., 16 Conn. App. 497 , 501-502, 548 A.2d 728 (1988), this court held that, because the evidence supported a jury charge on an injured party’s duty to mitigate damages, it was not necessary for the defendants to have pleaded mitigation as a special defense. 2021First, in Wasko v. Farley, 108 Conn. App. 156 , 169-70, 947 A.2d 978 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 922 , 958 A.2d 155 (2008), and Futterleib v. Mr. Happy’s, Inc., 16 Conn. App. 497 , 501-502, 548 A.2d 728 (1988), this court held that, because the evidence supported a jury charge on an injured party’s duty to mitigate damages, it was not necessary for the defendants to have pleaded mitigation as a special defense. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Wasko v. Farley
green
2 sentences2021First, in Wasko v. Farley, 108 Conn. App. 156 , 169-70, 947 A.2d 978 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 922 , 958 A.2d 155 (2008), and Futterleib v. Mr. Happy’s, Inc., 16 Conn. App. 497 , 501-502, 548 A.2d 728 (1988), this court held that, because the evidence supported a jury charge on an injured party’s duty to mitigate damages, it was not necessary for the defendants to have pleaded mitigation as a special defense. 2021First, in Wasko v. Farley, 108 Conn. App. 156 , 169-70, 947 A.2d 978 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 922 , 958 A.2d 155 (2008), and Futterleib v. Mr. Happy’s, Inc., 16 Conn. App. 497 , 501-502, 548 A.2d 728 (1988), this court held that, because the evidence supported a jury charge on an injured party’s duty to mitigate damages, it was not necessary for the defendants to have pleaded mitigation as a special defense. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Wasko v. Farley
green
2 sentences2021First, in Wasko v. Farley, 108 Conn. App. 156 , 169-70, 947 A.2d 978 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 922 , 958 A.2d 155 (2008), and Futterleib v. Mr. Happy’s, Inc., 16 Conn. App. 497 , 501-502, 548 A.2d 728 (1988), this court held that, because the evidence supported a jury charge on an injured party’s duty to mitigate damages, it was not necessary for the defendants to have pleaded mitigation as a special defense. 2021First, in Wasko v. Farley, 108 Conn. App. 156 , 169-70, 947 A.2d 978 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 922 , 958 A.2d 155 (2008), and Futterleib v. Mr. Happy’s, Inc., 16 Conn. App. 497 , 501-502, 548 A.2d 728 (1988), this court held that, because the evidence supported a jury charge on an injured party’s duty to mitigate damages, it was not necessary for the defendants to have pleaded mitigation as a special defense. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Sweat
green
1 sentence2014Two years ago in Wolcoff v. United States, the United States District Court for the District of Alaska held that Alaska has imposed a nondelegable duty on hospitals employing consulting physicians in their emergency rooms since 1987. 38 In the 1987 case of Jackson v. Power, the Alaska Supreme Court applied the doctrine, noting that it previously applied it to common carriers and that: “We have little trouble concluding that patients, such as Jackson, receiving treatment at a hospital emergency room are as deserving of protection as the airline passengers in [Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Sweat, 568 | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Archambault v. Soneco/Northeastern, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013In Archambault v. Soneco/Northeastern, Inc., 287 Conn. 20, 54 , 946 A.2d 839 (2008), our Supreme Court held that a general contractor did not owe a nondelegable duty to a subcontractor’s employee to ensure a safe work site because the evidence failed to establish that the general contractor retained or exercised control over the work site, and that the court improperly had instructed the jury to apply the nondelegable duty doctrine in that case. 2013In Archambault v. Soneco/Northeastern, Inc., 287 Conn. 20, 54 , 946 A.2d 839 (2008), our Supreme Court held that a general contractor did not owe a nondelegable duty to a subcontractor’s employee to ensure a safe work site because the evidence failed to establish that the general contractor retained or exercised control over the work site, and that the court improperly had instructed the jury to apply the nondelegable duty doctrine in that case. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Donner v. Kearse
green
2 sentences2006When a property owner’s liability to the plaintiff for the wrongful conduct of an independent contractor legally cannot be apportioned, then there is no reason to apportion fault between the property owner and the contractor in an apportionment proceeding. 10 Finally, Greenwich Acquisition argues that, in implementing tort reform, the legislature intended to impose “ ‘limitations on a negligent defendant’s obligation to pay damages.’ Bhinder v. Sun Co., 246 Conn. 223, 232 [ 717 A.2d 202 ] (1998).” See also Donner v. Kearse, 234 Conn. 660, 668-69 , 662 A.2d 1269 (1995). 2006When a property owner’s liability to the plaintiff for the wrongful conduct of an independent contractor legally cannot be apportioned, then there is no reason to apportion fault between the property owner and the contractor in an apportionment proceeding. 10 Finally, Greenwich Acquisition argues that, in implementing tort reform, the legislature intended to impose “ ‘limitations on a negligent defendant’s obligation to pay damages.’ Bhinder v. Sun Co., 246 Conn. 223, 232 [ 717 A.2d 202 ] (1998).” See also Donner v. Kearse, 234 Conn. 660, 668-69 , 662 A.2d 1269 (1995). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Henriques v. Magnavice
green
2 sentences2006Greenwich Acquisition also relies on Henriques v. Magnavice, 59 Conn. App. 333, 338 , 757 A.2d 627 (2000), to support its claim that apportionment is consistent with the nondelegable duty doctrine. 2006Greenwich Acquisition also relies on Henriques v. Magnavice, 59 Conn. App. 333, 338 , 757 A.2d 627 (2000), to support its claim that apportionment is consistent with the nondelegable duty doctrine. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Strate v. A-1 Contractors
green
1 sentence2004Ill THE TRIBE’S NONDELEGABLE DUTY The defendant’s final argument focuses on that part of Strate v. A-1 Contractors, supra, 520 U.S. 438 , that confers exclusive jurisdiction on tribal courts to adjudicate a dispute between nonmembers of a tribe if that dispute “has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 457 . 7 The defendant maintains that pursuit of the plaintiffs action in the Superior Court would have an adverse effect on the tribe’s economic interest in the safe maintenance of tr | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.