Esserman v. Madden

• Decision Date: 09 December 1937
• Citation: Esserman v. Madden, 123 Conn. 386, 195 A. 739 (Conn. 1937)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ESSERMAN v. MADDEN.

195 A. 739

123 Conn. 386

ESSERMAN v. MADDEN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 9, 1937

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Edwin C. Dickenson Judge.

Action by Dorothy Esserman against Margaret Madden to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant, brought to the Superior Court and tried to the court.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

No error.

James W. Carpenter, of Hartford, for appellant.

Barclay Robinson and Thomas L. Archibald, both of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE C.J., and HINMAN, BROWN, JENNINGS, and AVERY JJ.

AVERY Judge.

This case was tried to the court.From the finding it appears that the defendant owned an apartment house on Westbourne Parkway in Hartford, consisting of two tenements, the front doors of which opened onto a common front porch under the control of the defendant, from which were four steps leading to a cement walk which led to the street.The riser of the bottom step was twelve and one-half inches high, while those of the three upper steps were seven and one-half inches high.There was no railing along the side of the steps and little light upon them.On the evening of May 4, 1936, the plaintiff visited her daughter, who occupied one of the tenements.About 9:30 p. m. she left her daughter's tenement and while descending the stairs lost her balance when stepping from the lowest tread to the walk, because of the disproportionate height of the step, fell, and was injured.The trial court concluded that the difference in height between the lowest step and the other steps combined with the lack of light of a handrail constituted a dangerous condition, and that the defendant was negligent in maintaining and failing to correct this condition, and entered judgment for the plaintiff.In her appeal the defendant asked certain corrections of the finding, and maintains that the finding as corrected would not support the judgment.

The trial court found that when the plaintiff stepped from the lowest of the steps to the cement walk she lost her balance because of the differences in the height of this step and the three top steps, and fell forward onto the cement walk.Unless the defendant is entitled to a correction of this vital finding, she cannot succeed upon this appeal.It appears from the record that the plaintiff was sick at the time of the trial, and did not appear to testify in her own behalf, and the evidence as to how she fell consisted of the testimony of her grandson, who was accompanying her and saw her fall, and the testimony of other witnesses as to the condition of the stairway and others who had fallen on it under similar conditions.The grandson after stating that he was with her at the time of the accident and that it occurred between half-past 9 and 10 o'clock at night and was on the lowest step of the house stated that they went down the first three steps together and that as he got down the last step ahead of her, he was about to turn around, and saw her falling, that he touched her hand but could not prevent her so that she fell as she stepped off the bottom step to the ground.From this testimony and that of other witnesses as to the condition of the stairway, the absence of railing and of light, and that other people have fallen while stepping down the bottom step under similar conditions, the trial court, in the absence of direct...