RICHARD ARCHAMBAULT v. SONECO/NORTHEASTERN, INC., et al.; DUBIE SOWELL v. SONECO/NORTHEASTERN, INC., et al.

SC 17845

Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown

      Negligence; Whether General Contractor Should Have Been Permitted to Introduce Evidence that Subcontractor's Negligent Conduct was the Sole Proximate Cause of Injuries Sustained by Subcontractor's Employees; Whether General Contractor Owed Subcontractor's Employees a Nondelegable Duty to keep a Construction Site Safe.  Konover Construction Corporation (Konover) was the general contractor for a construction project in Willimantic.  It hired a subcontractor, Soneco/Northeastern, Inc. (Soneco), to perform certain work for the project.  Thereafter, two of Soneco's employees (the plaintiffs) were injured at the construction site.  They subsequently initiated these actions against Soneco and Konover, seeking damages for their injuries.  The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of Soneco on the ground that the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act barred the plaintiffs' claims.  The plaintiffs later filed motions in limine, seeking to prevent Konover from attempting to establish that Soneco's conduct caused the plaintiffs' injuries.  Relying on Durniak v. August Winter & Sons, Inc., 222 Conn. 775 (1992), the trial court granted the motions, concluding that under the workers' compensation scheme, a third party tortfeasor may not raise the negligence of the injured party's employer as a defense.  It further concluded that pursuant to General Statutes § 52-572h, liability for the plaintiffs' injuries could not be apportioned between Konover and Soneco because the latter was no longer a party to the actions.  The court subsequently declined Konover's request to instruct the jury that Soneco's conduct was a superseding cause of the plaintiffs' injuries, reasoning that the Supreme Court had abrogated the superseding cause doctrine.  Instead, it instructed the jury that Konover owed the plaintiffs a nondelegable duty to keep the construction site safe and that Soneco could not under any circumstances be held liable for the plaintiffs' injuries.  After the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, Konover appealed, arguing, among other things, that it should have been permitted to introduce evidence that Soneco's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries.