Currie v. Consol. Ry. Co.

• Citation: 81 Conn. 383,71 A. 356
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 18 December 1908
• Parties: CURRIE v. CONSOLIDATED RY. CO.

71 A. 356

81 Conn. 383

CURRIE

v. CONSOLIDATED RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 18, 1908.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; William L. Bennett, Judge.

Action by David E. Currie against the Consolidated Railway Company for the loss of a wagon. From a judgment for defendant entered on a directed verdict, plaintiff appeals. Error found, and new trial ordered.

George E. Beers and Frank S. Bishop, for appellant.

Harry G. Day and Thomas M. Steele, for appellee.

BALDWIN, C. J. The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove these facts: He keeps a livery stable in New Haven, and one Munson had been in his employ for a year or two as a driver of a coupé. About 2 o'clock on April 26, 1906, Munson hired from the stable a light "runabout" wagon containing but one seat, to which he hitched one of the plaintiff's horses, and drove off. About nine hours later the wagon was struck in the rear and wrecked by an electric car of the defendant. The place of the collision was on Dixwell avenue about four miles from the center of the city in a comparatively thinly settled part of Hamden. The avenue at this place was level, and ran straight north and south for a considerable distance in each direction. The middle was macadamized for a width of 19 feet. West of this came a strip 16 feet wide, on which some grass was growing. Immediately east of it was the single-track railway of the defendant. The car was a long and heavy one, equipped with air brakes and having a single bulb, incandescent electric headlight, which enabled the motorman to see an object in front for a distance of but about 25 or 30 feet. There were no passengers on board. No gong was sounded before the collision. That was attended by a loud crash. The night was a clear, starlight one. When the car was brought to a stop after the collision, Munson's body lay bleeding on the macadam pavement, and 10 or 12 feet west of the middle of the car. The horse had disappeared. There were impressions on the earth between the railway tracks indicating that the wagon had been driven northwards for a distance of about 130 feet, with its right wheel half way between the rails, before reaching the point where the collision took place. The pressure of air in the brakes of the car was about 60 or 70 pounds.

One of the plaintiff's witnesses was Alexander Cahn, a civil engineer, who testified that he had had experience in the construction and equipment of electric railways. He was then asked questions adapted to bring out answers to the effect that long prior to the date of the accident searchlights of considerable illuminating power had been in use on such railways and proved satisfactory, and their use and value were generally known and understood by those interested in the equipment of railroads. These questions were put in connection with the claim that the defendant had been negligent in not equipping such of its cars as were to be run at night on country roads with searchlights of that description. They were excluded, and error is well assigned upon that ruling. In the complaint negligence was charged, among other things, in giving no signal of the approach of the car; in running at an excessive rate of speed; in not having a "headlight of suitable illuminating power for the character of the road on which said ear was operated"; in not maintaining a proper lookout; and in not stopping the car sooner. These averments were denied. The use of a highway for electric street cars imposes no new servitude upon the soil. It is simply a new form of the original use. The owner of the car in running it is therefore governed by the same rules which apply to the management of any other vehicles. Being of greater size and weight than they commonly are, and capable of being moved at a very high rate of speed, the car must at all times be kept so well in hand as not to expose others to unreasonable hazard. Laufer v. Bridgeport Traction Co., 68 Conn. 475, 37 Atl. 379, 37 L. R. A. 533. When running at night, it must be provided with such means of illumination as may be requisite, in connection with the light, if any, to be expected from other sources, to enable the motorman to see far enough ahead to do whatever ordinary care may demand in order...