Balaas v. City of Hartford
| Decision Date | 16 April 1940 |
| Citation | 126 Conn. 510,12 A.2d 765 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BALAAS v. CITY OF HARTFORD. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; John A. Cornell, Judge.
Action by Girard Balaas against the City of Hartford to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant and by nuisance maintained by it brought to the Superior Court and tried to the court. From a judgment for the defendant, plaintiff appeals.
No error.
A finding of fact, if reasonable, is not reviewable.
Leon RisCassi and William P. Averill, both of Hartford, for appellant.
Harold Broden and Vincent W. Dennis, both of Hartford, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS JJ.
The plaintiff and a young lady by the name of Margaret A. Takeman were injured while they were respectively sliding and skiing in a public park under the control of the park commissioners of the defendant city. Both brought suit claiming that, under the circumstances, the city maintained a nuisance, and judgment was rendered for the defendant in each case. The plaintiffs appealed. The parties stipulated that the issues in the two suits were the same, that the record in the Balaas suit only should be printed and that the decision should control the result in the Takeman case.
The undisputed facts in the finding are as follows: Goodwin Park is one of several in Hartford devoted to public use and owned by the city. In connection with other public parks it is under the management, care and control of the board of park commissioners. Certain portions of Goodwin Park have been laid out or adapted for use for particular athletic or recreational purposes, for instance, a playground, miniature boat racing, tennis, baseball, skating and golf.
The portion of the park which is involved in the accident is bounded on the west by a drive affording access from Maple Avenue. About one hundred and sixty feet east of the easterly line of this avenue there is a ledge with a fifteen foot drop. This resulted from a quarrying operation which took place more than forty years ago. In laying out and beautifying the park it was sought to take advantage of its presence as a factor in the landscape. It is also a natural hazard in connection with the municipal golf field. The land between the ledge and the avenue is comparatively flat and slopes gently down toward the ledge. The ledge is not visible either in the daytime or at night to one standing on the easterly edge of the drive. Until 1932 no sliding was done in the park, and since that time it has been restricted to the area east of the drive and north of a light pole situated to the north of the north edge of the ledge. The slope in this section is much steeper than that between the drive and the ledge but is not marked off by barrier or otherwise from the portion to the south of it. It would, however, from its grade, appeal to anyone intent on such sport as adapted to the purpose, as the comparatively flat area to the south would not.
When sliding was engaged in an employee of the park board was stationed to maintain order and prevent injury to anyone taking part in it. Such a man was stationed there on the night when this injury occurred, February 5, 1937, as several children were engaged in sliding in the area described as adapted for that purpose. About 7:30 the plaintiff and his companion, Miss Takeman, drove in together to slide and ski. Miss Takeman did not know much about skiis and after they had looked the place over they selected the area south of the light pole to ski and slide because that would be apart from where the children were sliding, and because the incline was very slight. The plaintiff helped Miss Takeman put on the skiis and left her standing while he went back to get his sled. While he was on the way to the car the skiis began to move and eventually precipitated Miss Takeman over the ledge to the ground below. When ...
To continue reading
Request your trial