Sevigny v. Dibble Hollow Condominium Ass'n
819 A.2d 844, 2003 Conn. App. LEXIS 178, 76 Conn.App. 306 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The determination of whether a legal duty exists is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury. A condominium association owes a common-law duty of care to its unit owners, akin to that of a landlord to a tenant, to maintain common areas in a reasonably safe condition.
Facts:
- Romeo Sevigny owned a condominium unit at the Dibble Hollow Condominiums.
- Dibble Hollow Condominium Association, Inc. was responsible for maintenance of the complex's driveways, including snow and ice removal, and unit owners were discouraged from performing this maintenance themselves.
- Dibble Hollow contracted with Thibodeau Management Services, Inc. to manage the property and with Theodore Vancour to provide snow removal services, which included sanding driveways when icy.
- On December 27, 1997, a half-inch of mist and snow fell and remained on the ground.
- The following day, December 28, 1997, Sevigny's driveway remained covered in ice and had not been plowed, salted, or sanded.
- Sevigny, who had a history of back problems and wore a leg brace, slipped and fell on the ice in his driveway while exiting a minivan.
- As a result of the fall, Sevigny suffered an additional injury to his lumbar spine, which required two additional surgeries.
Procedural Posture:
- Romeo Sevigny sued Dibble Hollow Condominium Association, Inc., Thibodeau Management Services, Inc., and Theodore Vancour for negligence in a Connecticut trial court.
- The defendants asserted the special defense of contributory negligence.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of all defendants.
- In response to interrogatories, the jury found that the defendants were not negligent and that Sevigny's own negligence was more than 50% of the cause of his injuries.
- Sevigny (plaintiff-appellant) filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court rendered judgment on the jury's verdict, from which Sevigny appealed to the Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error by instructing the jury to determine the defendants' legal duties from contracts and by failing to instruct on a condominium association's common-law duty to a unit owner for the maintenance of common areas?
Opinions:
Majority - Flynn, J.
Yes. A trial court commits reversible error by improperly delegating the determination of legal duty to the jury and by failing to provide a complete charge on all properly pleaded theories of negligence. First, the existence of a legal duty is a question of law for the court to decide, not a question of fact for the jury. The trial court erred by instructing the jurors to read the contracts between the defendants and determine for themselves what legal duties were owed to the plaintiff. Second, the court improperly failed to instruct the jury on the plaintiff's common-law negligence claim against the condominium association, Dibble Hollow. A condominium association that controls the common areas has a duty to its unit owners analogous to that of a landlord to a tenant, which is the duty owed to an invitee to reasonably inspect and maintain the premises. This instructional error was not harmless; because Connecticut uses a comparative negligence system, the jury's task of apportioning fault requires a complete and accurate understanding of the duties owed by all parties. An incorrect charge on the defendants' duties taints the entire comparative fault analysis, making a new trial necessary.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinct roles of the judge and jury in negligence cases, reinforcing the principle that duty is a question of law exclusively for the court. It also establishes significant precedent in Connecticut by holding that a condominium association's relationship with a unit owner regarding common areas is analogous to a landlord-tenant relationship, thereby imposing the common-law duties owed to an invitee. The court's analysis of harmless error under a comparative negligence framework is also impactful, demonstrating that an improper instruction on a defendant's duty fundamentally taints the jury's ability to apportion fault, making it difficult to uphold a verdict where such an error exists.
