Opinion
File No. 118127
The basis of liability of an owner of premises for injuries to an employee of an independent contractor, stated. The plaintiff, an employee of an independent contractor engaged to install windows in a building belonging to two of the defendants, alleged that he was standing on an extension ladder set up at an angle over a driveway when the third defendant drove into the driveway and struck the ladder, causing the plaintiff to fall. It was clear from these facts that the very danger complained of was created by the plaintiff and was as obvious to him as to the owners. The complaint, therefore, failed to state a basis of liability on the part of the owners. An allegation, by amendment, that the owners knew, but failed to warn, of hidden dangers not known to the plaintiff, was inconsistent with the underlying facts alleged, and could not avail the plaintiff.
Memorandum filed January 11, 1960
Memorandum of decision on demurrer. Demurrer sustained.
Nathaniel Bergman, of Hartford, for the plaintiff.
Schofield, Fay Courtney, of Hartford, for defendant J. Kowalski.
Alvin C. Leone, of East Hartford, for defendants C. and N. Greci.
The defendants Greci, who demur to the substituted complaint, were owners of a building. The plaintiff was the employee of an independent contractor, engaged to install windows in the building. It is alleged that he was standing on an extension ladder, which was set up at an angle over a driveway adjacent to the premises, when another defendant, who was a tenant in the building, drove into the driveway, collided with the ladder and caused plaintiff to fall.
A demurrer to the original complaint by defendants Greci was sustained. The change made by the substituted complaint is in paragraph 8, where, in brief, it is now alleged that these defendants knew and the plaintiff did not know of the dangerous position the latter was in in performing his work, and that these defendants knew of the "hidden dangers" or perils to the plaintiff while working on the extension ladder and failed to warn him.
An owner of premises in general is not responsible to an independent contractor or his servant for defects or dangers of which the contractor knows or ought to know. But if the defect or danger is hidden and known to the owner, and is not known to the contractor or is not such that he ought to know of it, it is the duty of the owner to warn the contractor, and if he does not do so, he is liable for resultant injury. Douglass v. Peck Lines Co., 89 Conn. 622, 629; Johnson v. Charles William Palomba Co., 114 Conn. 108, 110.
Under the facts here alleged, there was no such hidden defect or danger as that contemplated by these cases. Any danger from the fact that the ladder was set up at an angle over the driveway in such a position that it might be struck by one using the driveway, was as obvious to the plaintiff as to these defendants. In fact, the very danger of which plaintiff complains was created by him. The new allegations of the substituted complaint above referred to do not avail him, since the facts alleged do not support them.
Aside from the hidden danger theory, upon which the demurrer was argued, an owner may under certain circumstances be liable to an independent contractor who is in the position of invitee or business visitor. See Reboni v. Case Bros., Inc., 137 Conn. 501. The facts alleged here, however, do not bring the situation within such cases as this.