Bennett v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 September 1889
• Citation: 57 Conn. 422,18 A. 668
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BENNETT v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. Co.

18 A. 668

57 Conn. 422

BENNETT

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

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Sept. 9, 1889.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county.

Action by Edwin L. Bennett against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

W. C. Case and W. H. Ely, for appellant. W. K. Townsend and G. D. Watrous, for appellee.

CARPENTER, J. This is an action for damages sustained by falling from the platform of the depot at the defendant's station at Yatesville. The defendant suffered a default, and was heard on the question of damages. The superior court found that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and assessed nominal damages only. The plaintiff appealed.

The facts, briefly stated, are these: The plaintiff lived near the station, which was at a small village, and arrived there in the evening on one of the defendant's trains. The station agent had left, and there was no light in the depot, except one lantern. One outside lamp was burning, which lighted the platform on the east side of the depot. The plaintiff went to the waiting-room to speak to an employe of the defendant. He then, in company with another man, started to go home. From the easterly platform two stairways lead to the ground below. Near the easterly end of the north platform is another stairway. All these stair ways were sufficiently lighted by the burning lamp. They passed by all these stairways onto the north platform, "passing into utter darkness," intending to go down some stairs near the westerly end of the north platform. That part of the platform "was entirely dark, and the steps indistinguishable." The plaintiff missed his calculation, went some eight inches beyond the stairs, and walked off the westerly end of the platform, falling some four feet, to the ground, and was seriously injured. We are not called upon to consider any question relating to the negligence of the defendant. The court below made no finding on that point, but disposed of the case entirely on the question of contributory negligence. Citing Dyson v. Railroad Co., 57 Conn. 9, 17 Atl. Rep. 137, and Nolan v. Railroad Co., 53 Conn. 461, 4 Atl. Rep. 106, the plaintiff's counsel insist that, the facts being found, the question is one of law which this court can review. Conceding this, still, before we can disturb the judgment, it must appear that the court below arrived at its conclusion by reason of some error in law. Unlike the cases cited, it does not appear in this case that the court below found the plaintiff guilty of negligence by requiring of him some act which the law did not require, or inferred it from the omission of some act which was properly omitted. The court simply required of him ordinary care under the...