Connecticut Statutes
§ 31-49 — Care required of a master for his servant's safety.
Connecticut § 31-49
This text of Connecticut § 31-49 (Care required of a master for his servant's safety.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-49 (2026).
Text
It shall be the duty of the master to exercise reasonable care to provide for his servant a reasonably safe place in which to work, reasonably safe appliances and instrumentalities for his work and fit and competent persons as his colaborers and to exercise reasonable care in the appointment or designation of a vice-principal and to appoint as such vice-principal a fit and competent person. The default of a vice-principal in the performance of any duty imposed by law on the master shall be the default of the master.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Dighello v. Thurston Foods, Inc.
307 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D. Connecticut, 2018)
Lopez v. Burris Logistics Co.
952 F. Supp. 2d 396 (D. Connecticut, 2013)
Mendes v. Jednak
92 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D. Connecticut, 2000)
Estate of Smith v. Town of West Hartford
186 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D. Connecticut, 2002)
Arnone v. Connecticut Light Power, No. X01 Cv 98 0168276 (Mar. 22, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3858 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Stebbins v. Doncasters, No. X07 Cv99 0072908s (Jul. 14, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 8362 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Swaney v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 541984 (Mar. 17, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3830 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Cunningham v. Stamford Health Medical Group, Inc.
(D. Connecticut, 2023)
Corcoran v. Newmark Knight Frank Valuation & Advisory, LLC
(D. Connecticut, 2020)
Dagenais v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
(D. Connecticut, 2023)
Violissi v. City of Middletown
990 F. Supp. 93 (D. Connecticut, 1998)
Legislative History
(1949 Rev., S. 7367.) Cited. 80 C. 205; 143 C. 197. No basis for action under statute where case is clearly within scope of Workers' Compensation Act. 196 C. 529. Cited. 243 C. 66. Employer's refusal to accommodate employee's work-at-home request did not create an unlawful working condition under section. 249 C. 766.
Nearby Sections
15
§ 31-101
Definitions.§ 31-102
State Board of Labor Relations.§ 31-103
Appointment and removal of agent. Testimonial privilege. Appointment and removal of legal counsel.§ 31-104
Rights of employees.§ 31-105
Unfair labor practices.§ 31-106
Election of representatives.§ 31-107a
Application for transcript. Costs.§ 31-109
Enforcement of orders. Appeals.§ 31-11
Hindering inspector.Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 31-49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/31-49.