The immediate goal of initiating a lawsuit where governmental or Industry standards have been deviated from is obviously to compensate the unfortunate victims injured as a result. What may not be so obvious, however, is that in addition to providing remedies to those who have been injured, the evolving body of standards and practices recognized by governmental bodies and industry standards setting organizations benefits society as a whole, in that litigation premised on these principles often serves as a vital force for change, resulting in safer products, improved warnings, better regulation of work sites , and greater public awareness of the hazards. Over the last fifty years litigation involving these principles has caused significant changes in the way manufacturers do business and in the way businesses run their companies and regulate the safety of their own work environments. In the process, these changes have saved lives here in the United States and abroad, and prevented countless injuries.
The Question arises though when is adherence to a particular way of behavior espoused by a regulatory agency or industry oversight body required conduct and why should deviation from that standard be considered a breach of Duty to an injured party.Connecticut Courts have examined the issue at some length. It has been held that
"Duty is 'a legal conclusion' about relationships between individuals, made after the fact, and imperative to a negligence cause of action. The nature of the duty, and the specific persons to whom it is owed, are determined by the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the individual." 2 D. Pope, Connecticut Actions and Remedies, Tort Law (1993) § 25:05, p. 25-7. Jaworski v. Kiernan, 241 Conn. 399, 405, 696 A.2d 332 (1997); RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 385, 650 A.2d 153 (1994). "[T]he determination of whether a duty exists between individuals is a question of law. Petriello v. Kalman, 215 Conn. 377, 382, 576 A.2d 474 (1990); Shore v. Stonington, 187 Conn. 147, 151, 444 A.2d 1379 (1982). Only if a duty is found to exist does the trier of fact go on to determine whether the defendant has violated that duty. Petriello v. Kalman, supra, at 382-83, 576 A.2d 474.
"Our first step in an analysis of whether a duty exists and the extent of the defendant[s'] duty, therefore, is to determine the foreseeability of the plaintiff[s'] injury...." FN7 Jaworski v. Kiernan, supra, 241 Conn. at 406, 696 A.2d 332.
FN7. We have expressed the first prong of the duty analysis as follows: "Although it has been said that no universal test for [duty] ever has been formulated; W. Prosser & W. Keeton, [Torts (5th Ed.1984) ] § 53, p. 358; our threshold inquiry has always been whether the specific harm alleged by the plaintiff was foreseeable to the defendant. The ultimate test of the existence of the duty to use care is found in the foreseeability that harm may result if it is not exercised.... By that is not meant that one charged with negligence must be found actually to have foreseen the probability of harm or that the particular injury which resulted was foreseeable, but the test is, would the ordinary [person] in the defendant's position, knowing what he knew or should have known, anticipate that harm of the general nature of that suffered was likely to result? ... Frankovitch v. Burton, 185 Conn. 14, 20-21, 440 A.2d 254 (1981); Noebel v. Housing Authority, 146 Conn. 197, 200-201, 148 A.2d 766 (1959); Orlo v. Connecticut Co., 128 Conn. 231, 237, 21 A.2d 402 (1941)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jaworski v. Kiernan, supra, 241 Conn. at 405-406, 696 A.2d 332; RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., supra, 231 Conn. at 385, 650 A.2d 153.
Federal law and Connecticut jurisprudence both suggest support the finding of a duty to act where the issue has been considered and in effect voted upon by agencies and technical groups with relevant knowledge and experience to the issues at hand. On construction sites, for example, workers have died from falls and trench excavation collapses. Connecticut recognizes a duty to follow prescribed standards of doing things in order to provide a safe work site which requiires attendant safety precautions and proper equipment. See CGS 31-49 and CGS 31-370. In that context, It is Connecticut's public policy to look to those entities that have the right to control workplace conditions to exercise that control in a way that protects the workforce, not only to one's own direct employees. Brennan v. Occupational Safety Health Review Commission 513 F 2d 1032 (2d Cir 1975); OSHA safety regulations are admissible as evidence of negligence and proper for a jury to consider. Wendland v. Ridgefield Construction Services, Inc. 184 Conn 173 (1981).
Manufactures of products, sellers of Food and Service providers all must maintain an awareness and exert effort to comply with rules regulations that others have gravitated in order to reduce needless human suffering. Lack of specific intent to injure or ignorance of the standard is therefore no excuse.
