See Wood v. Chalet Susse International, supra, 14 CONN. L. RPTR. 188, quoting Williams v. Milner Hotels Co., 130 Conn. 507, 511, 36 A.2d 20 (1944) ("[a]n innkeeper is required to use reasonable care to keep his inn in a reasonably safe condition for his invitees") and 40 Am.Jur.2d, Hotels, Motels, Etc. ยง 81 (1968) ("The duties imposed upon an innkeeper for the protection of his guests are nondelegable, and liability cannot be avoided on the ground that their performance was entrusted to an independent contractor."). The court also quoted language from Kisziw v. William P. Bray Co., 145 Conn. 272, 141 A.2d 244 (1958), for the proposition that the court in that case disagreed with a general contractor's argument that a subcontractor was responsible for injuries suffered by the plaintiff: "The defendant owed an obligation to the public and could not relieve itself of liability by delegating to another the performance of a portion of the work. . . Particularly is this true here, where the work necessarily required precautions for the safety of members of the public lawfully using the public highway." Wood v. Chalet Susse International, supra, 14 CONN. L. RPTR. 188, quoting Kisziw v. William P. Bray Co., supra, 145 Conn. 276.
See also, Sagamore Group, Inc. v. Commissioner of Transportation, 29 Conn. App. 292, 301, 614 A.2d 1255 (1992) (general contractor performs management and coordination functions). Support for this court's instruction on this topic is found in Kisziw v. William P. Bray Co., 145 Conn. 272, 276, 141 A.2d 244 (1958) and cases cited therein. There, a factory owner engaged the defendant contractor to remove old tracks and to install new ones on a public highway.
Disagreeing with a general contractor's argument that the subcontractor was responsible for the plaintiff's injuries, our Supreme Court has stated, "The defendant owed an obligation to the public and could not relieve itself of liability by delegating to another the performance of a portion of the work. . . . Particularly is this true here, where the work necessarily required precautions for the safety of members of the public lawfully using the public highway." Kisziw v. William P. Bray Co., 145 Conn. 272, 276, 141 A.2d 244 (1958). Because Chalet Susse could not delegate its duty to the plaintiff to keep its premises safe, and because it is responsible to the plaintiff for any negligence on the part of Vining, apportionment is not appropriate. Apportionment should not occur when the named defendant is responsible for the acts of an independent contractor to whom it has delegated a nondelegable duty. Vining may well have a role to play in this litigation, but apportionment is not a part of the script.