Baril v. N.Y., N. H. & H. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 December 1915
• Citation: 96 A. 164,90 Conn. 74
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BARIL v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

96 A. 164

90 Conn. 74

BARIL

v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 17, 1915.

Appeal from City Court of Waterbury; Patrick J. McMahon, Judge.

Action by Joseph Baril against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company for damages to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. Trial to a jury and verdict for plaintiff, which the trial court upon motion of the defendant refused to set aside, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Forrest Shepherd, of Hartford, for appellant. Joseph H. Ried, of Waterbury, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. The plaintiff brings this action to recover damages alleged to have been received while upon the defendant's depot grounds at Bridgeport, Conn. The complaint alleges that plaintiff stumbled and fell upon a pair of stairs while he was passing from the ticket office of the defendant's railroad station, under its tracks, through the subway, up to the platform upon the easterly side of the depot, where he intended to take a train for Waterbury. The negligence relied upon was the failure of the defendant to provide a sufficient and proper light for passengers using the subway at this place. The plaintiff testified that the accident happened in the manner above stated. His testimony was unsupported as to the time, the place, and the manner in which he was injured.

The defendant offered evidence to show that over the steps, where the plaintiff claimed that he fell, there were two incandescent lights, which were always lighted when the subway was dark. The defendant called six witnesses whose testimony tended to show that the plaintiff did not sustain any injuries by falling on the steps of the subway, at the time he stated. The substance of their testimony was that, almost one-half hour before he claimed that he fell upon the steps, he was lying upon the west-bound platform at the westerly end of the defendant's passenger station, over 200 feet from the subway stairs in question. Several witnesses swore that the plaintiff was intoxicated at this time. It was conceded that, about this time, the plaintiff was taken from the passenger depot to the hospital in the police station in Bridgeport, where he received surgical treatment; that he was taken from the hospital to the police station, where he was placed under arrest on the charge of intoxication. Nine witnesses testified to facts which contradicted the plaintiff in the most positive manner. There does not appear to have been any fair chance for a mistake. Either the plaintiff or these witnesses testified untruthfully. The defendant's witnesses apparently were credible, and not interested in the result of this action, and in no way responsible for the accident. The evidence which they gave was not improbable or unreasonable; indeed, their testimony seems more consistent and probable than that of the plaintiff, who was testifying under the influence of self-interest The presiding judge correctly instructed the jury that the plaintiff must prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was guilty of negligence, which was the proximate cause of the injuries to the plaintiff, and that he himself, by his own negligence,' did not materially or essentially contribute to his injuries. A careful examination of the record discloses that the preponderance of the evidence, instead of supporting the contentions and statements of the plaintiff, was decidedly against them.

It is true that deference should be given to the opinion of the trial judge, who saw the witnesses and heard them testify; but there are cases when the preponderance of the evidence is so great as to clearly warrant the conclusion that the verdict was the product of...