Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)

Citation: Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Parent Document: Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2012-04-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7914567/atelier-constantin-popescu-llc-... ↗

Full Text

1,513 chars

In the present case, we conclude that, as a matter of law, Interstate’s use of a plasma cutter to cut the ductwork flush to the ceiling without first removing the ceiling to expose the combustibles was inherently dangerous. The trial court found, and the defendants do not dispute, that cutting the ductwork flush to the ceiling without first removing the ceiling created a high probability that a fire would occur. The defendants’ argument that, if the ceiling had been removed and the combustibles had been covered, the probability of fire would have been greatly reduced, is inapposite. Julie Chen specifically instructed Interstate not to remove the ceiling. The defendants may not now claim that, *749had JC Corporation contracted for something other than what they actually requested, the risk of injury would have been substantially less. Pelletier v. Sordoni/Skanska Construction Co., supra, 286 Conn. 563, would have been dispositive of the issue before this court had Julie Chen merely requested that the ductwork be removed and had Interstate then failed to take ordinary or routine precautions. Julie Chen requested, however, that the ceiling be left in place, and, as a result, the contracted for activity naturally exposed others to probable injury by creating a high probability of a fire. Therefore, we agree with the court that the contracted for activity was inherently dangerous and that JC Corporation is vicariously hable for the damages caused. 3 Nondelegable Duty to Take Safety Precautions

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text