Coletti v. City of Bridgeport

• Decision Date: 30 July 1925
• Citation: 103 Conn. 117,130 A. 175
• Parties: COLETTI v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

130 A. 175

103 Conn. 117

COLETTI v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 30, 1925

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John W. Banks, Judge.

Action by Albert Coletti against the City of Bridgeport. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

Samuel Reich and Murray Reich, both of Bridgeport, for appellant.

Henry Greenstein and Harry Schwartz, both of Bridgeport, for appellee.

CURTIS, J.

Upon the trial of this case to the jury the plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that on May 31, 1922, he was riding a bicycle in an easterly direction on the southerly side of Golden Hill street in Bridgeport, and while so riding ran into a hole in the highway and was severely injured thereby, which hole was 8 to 9 inches deep, 10 to 20 inches in width, and about 10 feet long, that the hole was unprotected, and had existed for several weeks, and the defendant had actual or constructive notice of its presence there, and the street was thereby made dangerous for travel.

The defendant offered evidence to prove the following facts among others: that the declivity into which the plaintiff is alleged to have driven was a rectangular excavation with sharp, straight sides, meeting at right angles, and extending for some distance on either side of the street railway tracks at said point, and was made by the street railway company for the purpose of repairing its tracks or switch at that point. That the duty of restoring that portion of the highway to a condition equal to that existing at the time that the work of digging such opening was begun rested exclusively upon the street railway company and not upon the city. That until that portion of the highway was so restored, the street railway company and not the city was liable in damages to any person injured while lawfully using the highway and exercising proper care. That no obligation or duty rested upon the city to repair that portion of the highway.

While some of these so-called facts are statements of legal duty and surplusage, they serve to indicate the legal question involved in the case. The court, after informing the jury that, prior to 1921, the statutes imposed upon street railway companies the duty of repairing that portion of the highway that lay between its tracks and within a distance of 2 feet on each side of the tracks (as to this see Root v Connecticut Co., 94 Conn. 238, 108 A. 506), then charged the jury, in substance, that at the time of this accident, the only duty resting upon the street railway company as to the highway where its tracks are located was that imposed by chapter 314 of the Public Acts of 1921 section 2, which reads as follows:

" Any street railway company which shall open a portion of such highway [where its tracks are located] for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing or repairing its tracks or appurtenances thereto, shall exercise reasonable care to protect the travelling public from injury therefrom and shall restore such highway to a condition at least equal to that existing at the time of beginning the work of such opening. Until such highway shall be so restored, such company shall be liable in damages to all persons injured in person or property while lawfully using such highway and exercising proper care therein."

The charge of the court was, in effect, that if the jury found that the hole in question was made by the street railway company for the purpose of repairing its tracks at that point, the plaintiff could not recover against the city. The sole question presented in this appeal is whether or not this interpretation of the effect of the Acts of 1921 was correct. Was it a correct interpretation of the legal situation, under chapter 314, Acts of 1921, to hold that a defective highway caused by the repair of the tracks of a street railway company imposed no liability upon the city, and imposed liability on the street railway only?

In the case of Lavigne v. New Haven, 75 Conn. 693, 55 A 569, the obligation upon a municipality for highway defects was traced from the earliest times, and we reiterated...