Background
Wendy C. Villalobos was struck by a vehicle while pushing a shopping cart through a crosswalk in front of a Target store in New Britain. The driver made a wide turn from a parking aisle onto the roadway and struck Villalobos in the northbound lane. Villalobos alleged that Target negligently designed and maintained the roadway, including by failing to install stop signs and a center yellow line.
Target stipulated that the state-approved site plan called for a center yellow line, that the line existed when the store was built, and that it was absent when the accident occurred. Its evidence indicated that Target had hired contractors to design, construct, repave, and maintain the roadway, and that a repaving vendor may have failed to repaint the line. The trial court declined Villalobos’ requested instruction that Target’s duty to keep its premises reasonably safe for invitees was nondelegable. The jury returned a defense verdict.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed and ordered a new trial. Because Target controlled the premises and had hired independent contractors to design, construct, and maintain the roadway, the requested nondelegable-duty instruction was legally correct and supported by the evidence. Target could delegate performance of its premises-safety obligations, but not its ultimate legal responsibility for a contractor’s negligence.
The court also concluded that Villalobos presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the missing center line was a dangerous defect and a substantial factor in the collision. Her expert testified that a center line would have guided drivers into the proper lane in a high-conflict area and that the driver would have passed Villalobos rather than hit her had she remained in her lane. The omitted instruction was harmful because the jury could have attributed any roadway defect to Target’s contractors without understanding that their negligence could be imputed to Target.
Key Takeaways
- A premises owner or occupier cannot avoid its duty to keep premises reasonably safe for invitees by hiring independent contractors.
- Evidence that contractors designed, repaved, or maintained allegedly defective property can require a nondelegable-duty jury instruction.
- Questions of defect, foreseeability, and causation ordinarily remain for the jury when supported by competent evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that a defendant’s use of designers, maintenance vendors, or other contractors does not insulate it from premises-liability exposure. Where contractor involvement could lead jurors to assign responsibility away from the property owner, the jury must be told that the owner remains vicariously responsible for negligent performance of its nondelegable safety duty.