Skip to main content

Carrico v. Mill Rock Leasing, LLC

Conn. App. Ct.July 21, 2020No. AC42460Cited 4 times
RemandedJ Co.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
DiPentima; Moll; Devlin
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment reversed and remanded

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Appellate court reversed summary judgment against snow removal contractor J Co., holding that plaintiff stated a valid ordinary negligence claim under Restatement § 324A based on the contractor's duty arising from its snow removal services agreement, not premises liability.

Excerpt

The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant J Co., an independent contractor hired by a possessor of land to render snow and ice removal/remediation services for premises on which the plaintiff slipped on an accumulation of ice and fell to the ground, sustaining injuries. The trial court granted the motion for sum- mary judgment filed by J Co., interpreting the counts against it as sound- ing in premises liability, and finding that because the plaintiff did not allege that J Co. possessed and controlled the premises, J Co. did not owe a duty to the plaintiff. On the plaintiff's appeal to this court, held that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment as to those counts of the complaint against J Co. by mischaracterizing the plaintiff's claims as sounding in premises liability; the counts against J Co. alleged ordinary negligence in that the plaintiff did not allege that J Co. owed her a duty because it owned or controlled the premises, but that the duty J Co. owed to her arose from the snow services agreement it had with the third-party land possessor, and, pursuant to § 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, because the plaintiff alleged that J Co. undertook to render snow and ice removal/remediation services on the premises, which activity J Co. should have recognized as necessary for the protection of persons such as the plaintiff, J Co. may have been liable to the plaintiff for the injuries she allegedly sustained that resulted from any failure by J Co. to exercise reasonable care in removing/ remediating snow and/or ice from the premises. Argued March 10—officially released July 21, 2020

What This Ruling Means

**Carrico v. Mill Rock Leasing: Worker Wins Right to Sue Snow Removal Company** This case involved a worker who slipped and fell on ice at a workplace, injuring themselves. The worker sued J Co., an independent contractor hired to remove snow and ice from the property. J Co. argued they shouldn't be held responsible for the accident. The trial court initially sided with J Co., dismissing the case. The judge treated this as a "premises liability" case, which would have made it much harder for the injured worker to win because J Co. didn't own the property. However, the appeals court reversed this decision. The higher court ruled that the worker could pursue a regular negligence claim against J Co. under a legal principle that holds contractors responsible when they agree to provide safety services like snow removal. The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings. **Why this matters for workers:** If you're injured at work due to poor snow/ice removal by an outside contractor, you may be able to sue that contractor directly for negligence. You're not limited to workers' compensation if a third-party contractor's careless work caused your injury. This gives injured workers another potential avenue for recovering damages beyond their employer.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.