Anderson v. City of Bridgeport
| Decision Date | 09 July 1930 |
| Citation | 151 A. 188,111 Conn. 681 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT (two cases). |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John Rufus Booth, Judge.
Separate actions by Albert Anderson and by Mamie Anderson against the City of Bridgeport, for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. Cases were tried to a jury, and verdicts rendered for plaintiffs, and, from an order setting aside verdicts upon defendant's motion, plaintiffs appeal.
No error.
Clifford B. Wilson, of Bridgeport, for appellants.
Alexander L. DeLaney and Isadore L. Kotler, both of Bridgeport, for appellee.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS, JJ.
The plaintiffs did not claim that the defendant city had had actual notice of the alleged defect in the highway, and it was therefore necessary to prove that the defect had existed for such a length of time as to raise a presumption of knowledge on its part, and give it a reasonable opportunity to remove the defect. A careful study of the evidence shows no proof of the length of time the hole in question had existed. Witnesses testified to the size and location, and the general appearance of the hole, and there is a statement in the plaintiff's testimony that the roadway at that point was in an " unfit" condition, and also that this particular hole was " old" . The jury could have found from the evidence that the edges of the hole were ragged, and that little chips of the asphalt were broken off and lying in the hole, but that condition might exist on a much traveled highway, used by heavy trucks, like the one in question, if the hole was not old. Proof was necessary, not only that the defect was an old one, but that it had existed for such a length of time that the city could fairly be said to have had an opportunity to remedy it, and that it had not done so. The jury apparently believed that the hole had been there long enough to thus charge the city with notice, but the testimony furnishes no sound basis upon which such a conclusion can logically and fairly rest.
There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Falkowski v. MacDonald
...exercise of reasonable care could and should have discovered and remedied it. And proof of this fact must be definite and clear. Anderson v. Bridgeport, supra; v. Plainville, supra. As the finding stands we cannot hold as unwarranted the trial court's conclusion that no constructive notice ......
-
Tirendi v. City of Waterbury
...could and should have discovered and remedied it." Falkowski v. MacDonald, 116 Conn. 241, 245, 164 A. 650, 651; Anderson v. City of Bridgeport, 111 Conn. 681, 682, 151 A. 188; Shirlock v. MacDonald, 121 Conn. 611, 614, 186 A. 562. The "test is, not would the defect have been discovered had ......
- State ex rel. Szecskas v. St. Laszlo Hungarian Roman & Greek Catholic Sick Ben. Soc. of Bridgeport, Inc.