Baldwin v. City of Norwalk
| Decision Date | 21 February 1921 |
| Citation | 96 Conn. 1,112 A. 660 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BALDWIN v. CITY OF NORWALK. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John E. Keeler, Judge.
Action by A. H. Baldwin against the City of Norwalk to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff's person and his automobile alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in negligently permitting an obstruction dangerous to travel, to remain in a highway, brought to the superior court in Fairfield County and tried to the jury before Keeler, J. Verdict for plaintiff for $16,000, and appeal by the defendant. No error.
About 8:30 o'clock on the evening of February 20, 1918, the plaintiff sustained injuries to his person and to his automobile by the overturning of his automobile on Main street, a public highway in the city of Norwalk.
The plaintiff claimed to have proved: That on or about February 1, 1918, there had been removed from a catch-basin located between the trolley tracks on Main street a large quantity of refuse, mainly mud and sand which was held together by the freezing of the moisture in the pile. The pile was located between the curb and the trolley tracks and about 5 1/2 feet from the easterly trolley rail, and was about 20 inches in diameter at the base and from 18 to 20 inches in height. The face of the pile nearest the center of the street was nearly perpendicular, and the mass was hard and compact. The distance from the curb to the easterly rail was 11.05 feet. The plaintiff at the time in question was driving northerly on Main street, at about 15 miles per hour to attend a patient and with his left-hand wheels near the easterly rail of the trolley tracks. The vicinity was not otherwise lighted than by two small incandescent lamps of the city, one 100 feet north of the pile and one 70 feet south of the pile. The plaintiff was driving a Ford automobile, the lights upon it were lighted, and as the automobile passed the pile of débris the hub cap of the right front wheel struck against the west face of the pile. The impact threw the plaintiff's feet from the pedals which operate the brakes, the front wheels were thereby turned sharply to the right, and the automobile suddenly swung to the right, struck the curb, and overturned upon the plaintiff, severely injuring him and the automobile. The plaintiff as he drove up Main street was attending to the driving of his automobile and was keeping a reasonable lookout upon the road ahead of him; but by reason of the dark color of the mass of débris and the lights and shadows, he did not see the pile of débris, nor had he any prior knowledge of its existence. The plaintiff was throughout free from any negligence contributing to cause the overturning of his automobile and his injuries.
The defendant claimed to have proved that the winter of 1917-18 had been exceptionally cold and severe and it was very cold for four or five days preceding the accident. On February 20, 1918, the snow and ice had not been removed from the side of Main street except for a distance of at least 500 feet southerly of the point where the accident was claimed to have occurred, and extended from the curb for a distance of 5 feet. This accumulation was about 6 to 12 inches thick on the inside and tapered to the outer edge. The same condition continued for a long distance north and on the opposite side of the street. At the point where the accident was claimed to have occurred, there was an accumulation of snow and ice extending from a point 8 inches from the curb to a point 5 feet 3 inches from the curb. The distance from the outer edge of this accumulation to the easterly rail was 6 feet 2 inches. This pile was from 18 inches to 2 feet high throughout, except that the face toward the traveled portion of road was at a steep angle. The accumulation was 95 per cent. snow and ice, and it kept its form because of the frozen liquid of which it was for the most part composed. It was a clear moonlight night, the moon becoming full on February 25, and two electric street lights were located in the neighborhood, one at a distance of 35 feet and another at a distance of 125.7 feet from the accumulation. Main street was well paved with brick and 39 feet wide from curb to curb. There were no trees on either side of the highway for 150 feet in either direction from the accumulation. The plaintiff was proceeding at an excessive speed northerly along the street, without chains upon any wheel. At the time of the accident, 8:30 p. m., the pavement was covered with a thin skin of ice, and plaintiff's automobile proceeded a short distance, then swerved and struck the curb 60 feet from the accumulation when it overturned. For a distance of between 400 and 500 feet from the south of the accumulation there was an unobstructed view. No complaint had been made to the city authorities of this accumulation. Although other ice and snow removal work had not been completed in more widely traveled parts of the city, the appropriation on February 1, of the year in question, was reduced to $180.06, out of a total appropriation of $1,000. The defendant was not negligent as alleged, and the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
A verdict for $16,000 was not excessive to a physician 63 years of age, suffering a severe scalp wound, fracture of pelvis, and shortening of leg at hip, rendering it impossible for him to make calls and reducing his income from $2,000 to $500 per year.
William B. Boardman, of Bridgeport, and Edward J. Quinlan, of Norwalk, for appellant.
William H. Comley, Jr., of Bridgeport, for appellee.
The defendant's first claim of error is the denial by the trial court of its motion to set aside the verdict as against the evidence. The main ground upon which this claim is based is that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence because, the defendant claims, the evidence establishes that the conditions of light on the night in question were either sufficient to enable the plaintiff to observe a substantial object on the highway, or else his own lights were insufficient. The motor vehicle law makes the following provision regarding lights:
General Statutes, § 1535, par. (d): " Wherever there is not sufficient light within the limits of the traveled portion of the highway to make all vehicles, persons or substantial objects clearly visible within a distance of at least one hundred and fifty feet, the forward lights which a motor vehicle is required to display shall, when the vehicle is in motion, throw sufficient light ahead to show any person, vehicle or substantial object upon the roadway straight ahead of the motor vehicle for a distance of at least one hundred and fifty feet."
The defendant claims that under this statute an automobile driver who in the nighttime collides with a substantial object on a straight highway, in the absence of any intervening vehicles or objects which obscure or prevent a view ahead, should be presumed either to have seen the object or to have failed to see the object because he did not have the forward lights required by statute, and that he was therefore guilty of contributory negligence.
The defendant claims that under the evidence Main street was a straight highway, and the frozen accumulation of mud and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merback v. Blanchard, 2151
...plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law in failing to avoid the collision. The question was one of fact for the jury. In Baldwin v. Norwalk, 96 Conn. 1, 112 A. 660, claimed that under a statute an automobile driver who, at night, collided with a substantial object on a straight highway, ......
-
Duncan v. Mill Mgmt. Co. of Greenwich,Inc., 18722.
...evidence of subsequent remedial measures may be introduced into evidence for purposes of impeachment. See, e.g., Baldwin v. Norwalk, 96 Conn. 1, 8, 112 A. 660 (1921); see also Conn.Code Evid. § 4–7, commentary. In Baldwin, for instance, in which an employee of the defendant testified that h......
-
Bard v. Baker
...North States Construction Co., 183 Minn. 79, 235 N.W. 630;Kadlec v. Al. Johnson Constr. Co., 217 Iowa 299, 252 N.W. 103;Baldwin v. City of Norwalk, 96 Conn. 1, 112 A. 660. In the cases cited from other jurisdictions the ‘rule of safety’ is not statutory as in Michigan, and these cases are n......
-
Dalley v. Mid-Western Dairy Products Co.
... ... AFFIRMED ... Shay & ... Shay, of Cedar City, and Willard Hanson, of Salt Lake City, ... for appellant ... Clark, ... Richards & ... of contributory negligence should be submitted to the jury ... for its determination. Baldwin v. City of ... Norwalk , 96 Conn. 1, 112 A. 660; Rozycki v ... Yantic Grain & Products Co ... ...