Madeline McDermott, Administratrix (Estate of William McDermott), et al. v. State of Connecticut

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed a wrongful death and loss of consortium action arising from a tree-removal operation in which a bystander was fatally injured by flying debris. The court held that the trial court applied an improper standard in determining that the state had assumed a greater duty of care, but rejected the Appellate Court’s direction to enter judgment for the state. The case was remanded for a new trial under the general negligence standard, with proximate cause left for the trier of fact.

Holdings

1. The trial court improperly applied § 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts because it did not find that the decedent relied on the cone placement or that the placement increased the risk of harm. The record therefore did not support a conclusion that the State voluntarily assumed a greater duty than otherwise legally required.
2. Industry custom or safety standards are admissible evidence of the standard of care but are not conclusive or binding on the trier of fact. The applicable standard is the general negligence standard of duty, breach, causation, and actual injury.
3. The issue of proximate cause could not be resolved as a matter of law on the existing record. Whether failing to remove the decedent from the coned work zone was negligent and proximately caused the injury were factual questions for the trier of fact.
4. Because the trial court applied the wrong legal standard, the case had to be remanded for a new trial rather than resolved in the State's favor.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly applied a voluntary-undertaking theory under § 323 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts without making findings that the plaintiff relied on the undertaking or that the undertaking increased the risk of harm.
2. Whether an industry safety standard conclusively established the scope of the State's duty to the pedestrian.
3. Whether the Appellate Court properly determined as a matter of law that the State's conduct was not the proximate cause of the decedent's death.
4. Whether reversal based on application of the wrong legal standard required judgment for the State or a new trial.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded