Fields v. Hartford & W. H. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 April 1886 |
| Citation | 4 A. 105,54 Conn. 9 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | FIELDS v. HARTFORD & W. H. R. CO. |
Appeal from judgment of the superior court.
Case, Maltbie & Bryant, for plaintiff.
Henry C. Robinson, for defendant.
This is a complaint in a civil action for negligence. The defendant demurred. The superior court sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff appeals. The demurrer presents but a single point, which is that the complaint does not aver that written notice of the injury, and of the nature and cause thereof, and of the time and place of its occurrence, was given to the defendants, as required by law.
If the injury complained of resulted from a defective highway, which it was the duty of the defendant to keep in repair, then the defendant was entitled to have the notice prescribed by the statute, as follows:
"Any person injured in person or property by means of a defective road or bridge may recover damages from the party bound to keep it in repair; but no action for any such injury shall be maintained against any town, city, corporation, or borough unless written notice of such injury, and of the nature and cause thereof, and of the time and place of its occurrence, shall, within sixty days thereafter, or, if such defect consist of snow or ice, or both, within fifteen days thereafter, be given to a selectman of such town, or to the clerk of such city, corporation, or borough; and when the injury is caused by a structure legally placed on such road by a railroad company, it, and not the party bound to keep the road in repair, shall be liable therefor." Laws 1883, p. 283.
By the General Statutes, and by the charter of the defendant, it is made the duty of the defendant to grade and keep in repair the surface of the street adjoining the rails of its railroad, for a space not less than two feet in width on each side of each rail, and construct all cross-walks so that all vehicles can conveniently cross or turn off from such track.
The plaintiff alleges that "the defendant so improperly and negligently maintained and operated its railway in said highways as to render the use of said highways, by the public, dangerous; and that the plaintiff, while passing in his sleigh along said highways, and near the intersection thereof, by reason of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, was overturned and thrown from his sleigh, and received many and severe bodily injuries." This is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Touhey v. City of Decatur
...v. Norwich, etc., R. Co., 81 Conn. 284, 287, 129 Am. St. Rep. 212;1Hoyle v. Town of Putnam, 46 Conn. 56, 61;Fields v. Hartford, etc., R. Co., 54 Conn. 9, 11, 4 Atl. 105;Gardner v. City of New London, 63 Conn. 267, 28 Atl. 42;Breen v. Town of Cornwall, 73 Conn. 309, 47 Atl. 322;Trost v. City......
-
Touhey v. City of Decatur
... ... demurrer. These propositions are sustained by the following ... authorities: Crocker v. City of Hartford ... (1895), 66 Conn. 387, 34 A. 98; Forbes v. Town ... of Suffield (1908), 81 Conn. 274, 70 A. 1023; ... Bulkley v. Norwich, etc., R. Co. (1908), 81 ... Conn. 284, 287, 70 A. 1021, 129 Am. St. 212; Hoyle ... v. Town of Putnam (1878), 46 Conn. 56, 61; ... Fields v. Hartford, etc., R. Co. (1886), 54 ... Conn. 9, 11, 4 A. 105; Gardner v. City of New ... London (1893), 63 Conn. 267, 28 A. 42; Breen v ... ...
-
Canter v. The City of St. Joseph
... ... St ... Joseph, 112 Mo.App. 683; Lincoln v. Grant, 56 ... N.W. 995; Trost v. Caselton, 79 N.W. 1071; ... Gardner v. New London, 28 A. 42; Fields v ... Railroad, 4 A. 105. (2) The court committted error in ... permitting plaintiff's witnesses, over the objection of ... defendant, to testify ... ...
-
Anthony v. City of St. Joseph
...346; Lyons v. City of St. Joseph, 112 Mo.App. 683; City of Lincoln v. Grant, 56 N.W. 995; Trost v. City of Caselton, 79 N.W. 1071; Fields v. Railroad, 4 A. 105; Canter v. St. Joseph, 126 Mo.App. 629. Instruction number 6 is erroneous, for the reason that it does not limit the amount plainti......