Coolbaugh v. St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church of Bridgeport

• Decision Date: 05 July 1955
• Citation: 142 Conn. 536,115 A.2d 662
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Kathryn COOLBAUGH v. ST. PETER'S ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF BRIDGEPORT. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 662

115 A.2d 662

142 Conn. 536

Kathryn COOLBAUGH v. ST. PETER'S ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF BRIDGEPORT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 5, 1955.

Sigmund L. Miller, Bridgeport, with whom was Bernard Green, Bridgeport, for appellant (plaintiff).

Clarence A. Hadden, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was William L. Hadden, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).

Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE, and DALY, JJ.

BALDWIN, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff, Kathryn Coolbaugh, brought this action to recover damages from the defendant, St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church of Bridgeport, a Connecticut corporation, for injuries resulting from a fall which she suffered while on the defendant's property and which she alleges was caused by the defendant's corporate negligence. The defendant denied these allegations and, in a special defense, averred that it was a charitable corporation, without capital stock, whose members derive no financial benefit from its operation. The plaintiff replied, in effect, that at the time of her injury she was an invitee and not a beneficiary of any service of the defendant as a charitable corporation. This the defendant denied. After the case was presented to a jury, the court directed a verdict for the defendant and, upon the plaintiff's motion, refused to set it aside. The plaintiff has appealed, alleging error in the rulings of the court with respect to the verdict. Error was also assigned in certain rulings on evidence. These have not been pressed either in brief or oral argument and are therefore considered abandoned. Horton v. Vickers, 142 Conn. 105, 107, 111 A.2d 675.

The plaintiff's claims of proof, which are not subject to any material correction, can be abbreviated as follows: The defendant's church is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Beechwood and Colorado Avenues in Bridgeport. It faces north, with the main entrance on Beechwood Avenue. Seven steps lead from the church doors to a concrete platform, and from this platform four more steps descend tos the public sidewalk. Evergreen shrubs and barberry bushes serve as a border on the easterly side of the steps and the platform. There is another entrance, on the easterly side of the church, from which a concrete walk extends to Colorado Avenue. The area between the church and the public sidewalk is maintained as a lawn. The plaintiff was a regular attendant at the defendant's church. On September 17, 1950, after completing an errand at the church convent, the plaintiff attempted to enter the church through the door on Colorado Avenue. Her purpose was to light a candle for her daughter, who was expecting a baby. Unable to gain admission, the plaintiff crossed the lawn to a gap in the shrubbery bordering the steps and platform at the main entrance. While attempting to pass through, she tripped and fell over a wire which was strung about ten inches above the ground. The sexton of the church, without orders from anyone, had placed the wire there two years before to prevent children from crossing the lawn and going through the shrubbery. The two decisive issues are whether the defendant is immune from liability as a charitable corporation and whether the plaintiff was an invitee.

A charitable corporation is not responsible in damages to those who seek its benefits for any injury they may suffer through the negligence of its servants or agents. Tocchetti v. Cyril and Julia C. Johnson Memorial Hospital, Inc., 130 Conn. 623, 626, 36 A.2d 381; Boardman v. Burlingame, 123 Conn. 646, 652, 197 A. 761; Cashman v. Meriden Hospital, 117 Conn. 585, 587, 169 A. 915. This doctrine is firmly established in the law of our state. Nothing in the case at bar calls for any change or modification of it. Evans v. Lawrence & Memorial Associated Hospitals, 133 Conn. 311, 315, 50 A.2d 443; see Richards v. Grace-New Haven Community Hospital, 137 Conn. 508, 510, 79 A.2d 353; 2 Stevenson, Negligence in the Atlantic States, § 799. The plaintiff concedes that the defendant is a charitable corporation. See Mack's Appeal, 71 Conn. 122, 135, 41 A. 242. She claims, however, that the principle stated does not preclude her recovery because her injury was caused by the corporate negligence of the defendant, as distinguished from the negligence of one of its servants or agents. We have said that the words 'corporate neglect' must necessarily mean neglect of the officers or managing directors who constituted the governing board of the corporation, as distinguished from...