Fitch v. City of Hartford
| Decision Date | 22 January 1918 |
| Citation | 92 Conn. 365,102 A. 768 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | FITCH. v. CITY OF HARTFORD. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; John P. Kellogg, Judge.
Action by Hattle May Fitch against the City of Hartford, resulting in verdict for plaintiff, which was set aside, and plaintiff appeals, defendant excepting to the charge. No error.
This case comes here on plaintiff's appeal from the action of the court in setting aside the verdict and on defendant's bill of exceptions to the charge.
Plaintiff's evidence was that in stepping down from a raised platform which formed a part of the traveled sidewnlk she caught her foot between two flagstones on the lower level of the walk. The space between the flagstones was admittedly 10 1/2 inches long, 2 1/2 inches wide, 1 inch deep measured from the upper surface of one stone, and 2 1/2 inches deep measured from the other. This opening had existed for some years, and the plaintiff had observed it. At the time of the accident it was concealed by loose dirt thrown upon it by a licensee of the city who had dug a hole in the sidewalk, not far away, under a permit issued by the city.
It seems to have been conceded that the city had no actual notice of the changed condition caused by the concealment of the alleged defect, and that the dirt which concealed it might have been thrown there very shortly before the accident.
One portion of the charge included in the defendant's bill of exceptions is as follows:
William H. Fogerty, of Hartford, for appellant.
Francis W. Cole, of Hartford, for appellee.
BEACH, J. (after stating the facts as above). Whether the city was negligent in permitting a defect of the size and character above described to remain for an indefinite time at the place where it was located was a question for the jury to determine in view of all the surrounding conditions.
The plaintiff's story was one which the jury might reasonably believe, and the alleged defect was more than a negligible inequality of surface. Its location and dimensions were definitely ascertained, so that the jury could intelligently pass upon the question whether under all the circumstances of location and travel it was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Machado v. City of Hartford
...home from Hartford Hospital, where she was employed as a nurse. As she approached the intersection of Park Street and Hudson Street in Hartford, the plaintiff hit a large depression in the roadway that had developed as a result of road repair work being performed by USA. The collision cause......
-
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S. v. Slade
...29; Public Acts 1901, c. 89; Gen.St.Rev.1902, § 806. See Brown v. New Haven Taxicab Co, 92 Conn. 252, 256, 102 A. 573; Fitch v. Hartford, 92 Conn. 365, 102 A. 768; Gager v. Mathewson, 93 Conn. 539, 542, 107 A. 1; State Bank & Trust Co. v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co, 108 Conn. 680, 682......
-
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. Slade
...... less depreciation. Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Hartford, 99 Conn. 329, 122 A. 91. Another proper method. is capitalization of estimated gross rentals, ... § 806. See Brown v. New Haven Taxicab Co., 92 Conn. 252, 256, 102 A. 573; Fitch v. Hartford, 92 Conn. 365, 102 A. 768; Gager v. Mathewson, 93 Conn. 539,. 542, 107 A. 1; State ......
-
Morrell v. Wiley
...court; is sustainable on any ground. Dorfman v. Martin & Crawford Motor Co., Inc., 105 Conn. 774, 775, 136 A. 565; Fitch v. Hartford, 92 Conn. 365, 367, 102 A. Without discussing whether the allegations of fraud are sufficiently specific to warrant an action, the theory on which the plainti......