Civil Jury Instructions Home

3.9-9  Control

Revised to September 28, 2012

The legal responsibility for maintaining premises in a reasonable safe condition depends upon who is in possession of the land, that is, who has control of the premises. “Control” means the power or authority to manage, superintend, direct, oversee, restrict or regulate.

In considering whether a party is one who controls the premises, you can consider evidence of the following:

• acts of maintenance, such as fixing, repairing, cleaning, painting, performing upkeep - or the power to direct those activities;

• acts of inspection such as conducting or directing inspections or surveys of the property;

• acts restricting or allowing entry onto the premises;

• acts warning others of conditions or boundaries on the property, or setting or laying out rules for conduct upon the property;

• using the premises or property to store things, or to receive mail, visitors, customers or deliveries.

You must determine whether the plaintiff has proved that the defendant was in control of the premises at the relevant time. If the plaintiff has not so proved, then you must end your inquiry and return a verdict for the defendant. If the plaintiff has so proved, then you must consider whether the plaintiff has proved the other necessary parts of (her/his) case in making a determination of your verdict.

Authority

See LaFlamme v. Dallessio, 261 Conn. 247, 256-57 (2002); Panaroni v. Johnson, 158 Conn. 92, 98-100 (1969); Kirby v. Zlotnick, 160 Conn. 341, 344 (1971).

Notes

Subsequent remedial measures, though not admissible to prove negligence, may be admissible and can be considered by the jury if offered to establish the defendant's control of the premises. Hall v. Burns, 213 Conn. 446, 457 (1990); Wright v. Coe & Anderson, Inc., 156 Conn. 145, 155 (1968).

A case may involve a dispute over whether a defendant had control of the portion of the premises where the alleged defect was located, as distinguished from control of the larger area around it. In that instance, the judge should consider describing the precise area where the alleged defect was located, instead of using the general terms "premises" or "property."