Gates v. Crane Co.

• Decision Date: 06 January 1928
• Citation: 107 Conn. 201,139 A. 782
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GATES v. CRANE CO.

139 A. 782

107 Conn. 201

GATES v. CRANE CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

January 6, 1928

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Earnest C. Simpson Judge.

Action by Robert Gates against the Crane Company, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $8,750, and defendant appeals. No error.

Raymond E. Baldwin, of Bridgeport, for appellant.

John Keogh and William F. Tammany, both of South Norwalk, for appellee.

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

MALTBIE, J.

While an automobile truck owned by the defendant and operated by its servant in the course of his employment was descending a hill in the city of Norwalk, the left front wheel suddenly became detached, rolled onto the sidewalk where plaintiff was walking, ran against him, and gave him the injuries for which he is suing. The jury returned a verdict in his favor, and the defendant has appealed; one of its grounds being that the court erred in denying its motion to set the verdict aside as against the evidence and as excessive. As regards the first claim, the defendant does not now argue that the jury could not have reasonably found the plaintiff to be free from contributory negligence, but it does claim that they could not reasonably conclude that the defendant was chargeable with negligence.

The defendant claims, and the plaintiff does not seriously dispute, that the wheel became detached by reason of the breaking down of a bearing designed to hold it in place. The defendant concedes that the circumstances of the case make applicable the doctrine res ipsa loquitur. It was, then incumbent upon the defendant to satisfy the jury that it had exercised reasonable care to prevent the defective condition causing the accident, or, if it was not responsible for that condition, to discover and remedy it after it had arisen. Stebel v. Connecticut Co., 90 Conn 24, 26, 96 A. 171; Hunt v. Central Vermont Ry. Co., 99 Conn. 657, 661, 122 A. 563; Feeney v. New York Waist House, 105 Conn. 647, 650, 136 A. 554, 50 A.L.R. 1539. The defendant contends that the breaking down of the bearing was due to a latent defect, not discoverable by any reasonable inspection. The jury might, however, have reasonably concluded that this contention was not supported by the evidence, but that the defendant had not sustained its burden of proof as regards its claim that reasonable care had been taken by it to keep the bearings of the wheel properly adjusted. The statement of the driver that he had tested the adjustment of the wheel on the Saturday before the accident may not have been accepted by them, in view of the fact that his testimony was brought in question in at least one important aspect by evidence of contradictory statements made by him out of court. Hunt v. Central Vermont Ry. Co., supra, p. 660 (122 A. 563). Entirely apart from the doctrine res ipsa loquitur, there was evidence reasonably indicating that the driver had such warning of something being wrong with the mechanism of the truck that reasonable care on his part required him to stop it and not proceed until the defect had been remedied. The action of the trial court in denying the motion to set the verdict aside as against the evidence cannot be held erroneous.

The evidence tended to prove that after the accident the plaintiff was incapacitated from ever performing physical labor by reason of a disease of the heart. The defendant claims that the evidence conclusively proves this disease to have been a chronic condition, previously existing. But there was direct testimony that the plaintiff was not suffering from it three or four months before the accident, and it also appeared that he was working at hard manual labor up to the very day of the accident, which would not have...