Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** MICHAEL GAZO v. CITY OF STAMFORD ET AL. (SC 16202)
Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued September 21, 2000--officially released January 30, 2001 Counsel

Brenden P. Leydon, for the appellant (plaintiff). Christopher J. Coxon, for the appellee (defendant Joseph Pierni, Jr.).
Opinion

BORDEN, J. The two principal issues in this appeal1 are whether: (1) a plaintiff claiming injuries resulting from a slip and fall on icy and snowy property is owed a duty of care by an independent contractor hired by the possessor of the property to maintain the property in a safe condition; and (2) the plaintiff may sue the independent contractor as a third party beneficiary of the contract between the possessor of the land and the independent contractor. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the independent contractor on both claims. We disagree with the trial court's judgment on the first claim and agree with its disposition of the second claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment

in part. The plaintiff, Michael Gazo, brought the underlying action against the defendants, the city of Stamford (Stamford), David Rednick and Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (Chase Bank).2 Chase Bank filed an apportionment complaint against Joseph Pierni, Jr., doing business as Pierni Construction (Pierni). The plaintiff then filed a substitute complaint against the original defendants and against Pierni. Pierni moved: (1) for summary judgment on the apportionment complaint and the negligence count in the plaintiff's substitute complaint; and (2) to strike the breach of contract claim in the plaintiff's substitute complaint. The trial court granted both of Pierni's motions, and rendered judgment accordingly. The record reveals the following procedural history. The plaintiff allegedly suffered bodily injury when he slipped and fell on an icy and snowy sidewalk in Stamford on January 28, 1994. The plaintiff brought the underlying action against Stamford based on a statutory highway defect claim, and against Rednick and Chase Bank sounding in negligence, absolute public nuisance, and public nuisance arising out of negligence. The plaintiff alleged that Rednick and Chase Bank owed him a duty to keep the sidewalk clear of ice and snow, and that their failure to do so caused his injuries. Chase Bank filed an apportionment complaint against Pierni, and the plaintiff thereafter filed a substitute complaint against both the original defendants and against Pierni. In the substitute complaint, the plaintiff alleged: (1) the statutory highway defect claim against Stamford; (2) negligence, absolute public nuisance, and public nuisance arising out of negligence, against Rednick and Chase Bank; and (3) negligence, absolute public nuisance, public nuisance arising out of negligence, and breach of contract, against Pierni. The breach of contract count was based on an allegation that the plaintiff was a third party beneficiary of a contract between Chase Bank and Pierni. Pierni subsequently moved for summary judgment on (1) the apportionment complaint, and (2) the negligence count in the plaintiff's substitute complaint. The basis of the motion for summary judgment on both the apportionment complaint and on the plaintiff's negligence count in his substitute complaint against Pierni was that Pierni did not owe any duty of care to the plaintiff. Pierni also moved to strike the breach of contract count contained in the plaintiff's substitute complaint. The basis of the motion to strike was that the breach of contract count failed to allege that Pierni intended to assume a direct obligation to the plaintiff so as to render him a third party beneficiary of the contract. The trial court, Lewis, J., granted both the summary judgment motion and the motion to strike, concluding that ``[t]he landlord's duty to keep the premises safe cannot be delegated to a contractor obliged to remove snow and

ice from the landlord's premises.'' The trial court, Karazin, J., subsequently rendered judgment on the motion to strike. This appeal followed. I We begin by delineating what is not at issue in this appeal. Because Chase Bank did not appeal from the rendering of judgment in favor of Pierni on the apportionment complaint, the propriety of that ruling is not before us. Thus, this appeal stands in the same procedural posture as if the plaintiff had sued both Chase Bank and Pierni for breach of the same duty, namely, to keep Chase Bank's premises reasonably safe. Also not at issue is whether Pierni may be liable to the plaintiff on a theory of premises liability, which requires that the party to be held liable be in control of the property. That is not a basis of the plaintiff's claims. What is at issue is the question of whether Pierni owes a direct duty of care to the plaintiff based on Pierni's contractual relationship with Chase Bank. In this context, however, not at issue is whether Pierni's alleged duty is the same as that of Chase Bank. Implicit in the plaintiff's claim is that both Chase Bank and Pierni breached the same duty, and in the same way or ways. This is implicit in the plaintiff's allegations of negligence against Pierni,3 and in the plaintiff's reliance on 2 Restatement (Second), Torts

Download Gazo v. Stamford.pdf

Connecticut Law