Federman v. City of Stamford

• Decision Date: 02 May 1934
• Citation: 172 A. 853,118 Conn. 427
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: FEDERMAN v. CITY OF STAMFORD.

172 A. 853

118 Conn. 427

FEDERMAN v. CITY OF STAMFORD.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 2, 1934

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Ernest A. Inglis Judge.

Action by Marie S. Federman against the City of Stamford to recover damages for injury to person and property alleged to have been caused by a defective highway. The case was tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

No error.

Maurice J. Buckley, of Stamford, for appellant.

Joseph G. Shapiro, Harry Allison Goldstein, and Charles S. Brody all of Bridgeport, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

BANKS Judge.

On June 1, 1932, the plaintiff, while driving on Summer street in Stamford, passed over a sewer manhole in the street, the cover of which, when struck by the wheels of her car, became unseated, causing her to lose control of it. The car ran into a telegraph pole, with resulting personal injuries to the plaintiff and damage to the car. The plaintiff claimed that the cover was lower than the frame, which was set flush with the street; that it fitted so loosely in the frame that it was easily dislodged; and that it constituted a defect in the highway of which the city had actual or constructive notice.

There was evidence that, as the plaintiff drove over the manhole cover, the left front wheel of her car went down into the manhole; that the steering wheel of the car was pulled out of her hand with the result that she lost control of the car which crashed into a telegraph pole; that after the accident the manhole cover was lying in the street some distance from the manhole, and there was a mark on the warrenite where the cover had slid from the manhole over to the east side of the street. There was also evidence that this cover was an old type of manhole cover, light in weight, which was installed about April 15, 1932, some six weeks before the accident, to replace one that had become broken; that it was three-eighths of an inch below the level of the frame into which it set so loosely that it would rattle when vehicles passed over it; that about two weeks before the accident it had been found unseated and several inches out of position; and that after the accident the city authorities poured asphalt upon it to keep it from rattling and to bring the surface of the cover up to the level of the street. The jury might have reasonably concluded that the cover so installed would be likely to be displaced by automobile traffic passing over it, leaving the opening in the manhole exposed.

In placing and maintaining the cover over the catch-basin the city was exercising a governmental function; but if the cover was of a type and its installation was in a manner to make the street not reasonably safe for public travel, it might constitute a defect within the meaning of the statute. Gen St. § 1420; Hoyt v. City of Danbury, 69 Conn. 341, 352, 37 A. 1051, 1055; Rogers v. Meriden, 109 Conn. 324, 327, 146 A. 735. In the Hoyt Case, in speaking of a claimed defect in the sidewalk due to the construction of steps in it, we said, by Baldwin, C.J.: " So, were the plan of construction adopted one which was totally inadmissible,-as, for instance, if the sidewalk in question in the case at bar had been left with its grade broken simply by a four-foot wall, without the provision of steps, or had the steps provided been insecure, or unguarded by a proper railing,-the highway would have been in such a defective condition as to have been out of repair from the beginning." See,...