Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 31 — LABOR · Chapter 557 — Employment Regulation
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-49 (2026)

Care required of a master for his servant's safety

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It shall be the duty of the master to exercise reasonable care to provide for his servant a reasonably safe place in which to work, reasonably safe appliances and instrumentalities for his work and fit and competent persons as his colaborers and to exercise reasonable care in the appointment or designation of a vice-principal and to appoint as such vice-principal a fit and competent person. The default of a vice-principal in the performance of any duty imposed by law on the master shall be the default of the master.

(1949 Rev., S. 7367.)

Cited. 80 C. 205; 143 C. 197. No basis for action under statute where case is clearly within scope of Workers' Compensation Act. 196 C. 529. Cited. 243 C. 66. Employer's refusal to accommodate employee's work-at-home request did not create an unlawful working condition under section. 249 C. 766.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Secs. 31-49a to 31-49d. Reserved for future use.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Perille v. Raybestos-Manhattan-Eur., Inc., 494 A.2d 555 (Conn. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Perille v. Raybestos-Manhattan-Eur., Inc., 494 A.2d 555 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 36× “Sounding in tort, the three counts directed against Raybestos claimed that the plaintiff sustained “severe mental and physical harm” as a result of Raybestos’ alleged breach of an implied condition of its employment contract, violation of General Statutes § 31-49, and…”
Parsons v. United Tech. Corp., 700 A.2d 655 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 11× “14 The main statutes upon which the plaintiff relied are General Statutes §§ 31-49 and 31-370. Section 31-49 provides in relevant part that “[i]t shall be the duty of the master to exercise *78 reasonable care to provide for Ms servant a reasonably safe place in wMch to work .”
Daley v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 734 A.2d 112 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 8× “Thereafter, by amended complaint dated August 2, 1996, Daley repleaded counts one through six, and count ten, and asserted a new claim for negligent employment practices under General Statutes § 31-49. 4 After a trial on the merits, the trial court, Aurigemma, J.”
Lopez v. Burris Logistics Co., 952 F. Supp. 2d 396 (D. Conn. 2013). · cites it 14× “20 The Court specifically noted that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-49 , in conjunction with Conn.”
Dighello v. Thurston Foods, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D. Conn. 2018). · cites it 3× “In Trimboli , the plaintiff's claim for common-law wrongful discharge was predicated on oral and written complaints she made to her employer's internal management regarding her concerns for the physical welfare and safety of Connecticut employees under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-49 .…”
Thibodeau v. Design Grp. One Architects, LLC, 802 A.2d 731 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff employee relied primarily on General Statutes § 31-49, which provides that employers shall exercise reasonable care to maintain a reasonably safe workplace for their employees, and General Statutes § 31-370, which requires employers to furnish their employees with…”
Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C., 717 A.2d 811 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 4× “” General Statutes § 31-49 provides: “It shall be the duty of the master to exercise reasonable care to provide for his servant a reasonably safe place in which to work, reasonably safe appliances and instrumentalities for his work and fit and competent persons as his colaborers…”
Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C., 16 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff notes in her brief to this court that General Statutes § 31-49 mandates that “[i]t shall be the duty of the master to exercise reasonable care to provide for his servant a reasonably safe place in which to work .”
Murdock v. Croughwell, 848 A.2d 363 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff also maintains that a duty exists pursuant to General Statutes § 31-49. Because a claim based on this statute was not raised before the trial court, however we decline to address it here.”
Thibodeau v. Design Grp. One Architects, LLC, 17 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1481 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff in this case, prior to commencing this action in the Superior Court, filed a complaint with the commission, which the commission dismissed because the defendant had fewer than three employees.”
Est. of Smith v. Town of West Hartford, 186 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D. Conn. 2002). · cites it 3× “The plaintiffs claim that this cause of action is brought pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31-49 and certain principles set forth in Parsons v.”
Burke v. Interlake, Inc., 600 F. Supp. 59 (D. Conn. 1984). · cites it 3× “* * * The remaining argument raised in the Plaintiff’s Memorandum, to the effect that liability may be imposed on Hallmark under § 31-49 of the Connecticut General Stat *63 utes, is totally without merit.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.