Gaylord v. City of New Britain

• Decision Date: 06 January 1890
• Citation: 58 Conn. 398,20 A. 365
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GAYLORD et ux. v. CITY OF NEW BRITAIN.

20 A. 365

58 Conn. 398

GAYLORD et ux.

v. CITY OF NEW BRITAIN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 6, 1890.

Appeal from court of common pleas, Hartford county.

Philip J. Markley, for appellants. Lyman S. Burr, for appellee.

FENN, J. On the evening of February 19, 1888, Mrs. Gaylord received injuries occasioned by slipping on ice, which had accumulated on a flagged walk in the defendant city. This ice had formed the same day from the melting of snow piled between the sidewalk and curb, in a space seven feet in width. For several weeks the sidewalk had been covered with water for a considerable distance at, and east and west of, the place of the injury, whenever the weather was warm enough to melt the adjacent snow. The residents would clear off or cover the ice in the morning, but ice would form anew towards evening from the snow melted by day. Of this condition of things the defendant was fully informed, and the street commissioner had been twice notified, once at least 10 days before February 19, 1888, that the sidewalk was inconvenient and unsafe, by reason of the constant accumulation and reaccumulation of ice, and that an accident was probable in consequence. The difficulty could have been removed, and the sidewalk made safe if the gutter on the same side of the street had been kept properly cleaned, or if the snow between the sidewalk and curb had been removed, either of which things could have been done without unreasonable trouble and expense; and the defendant had ample time after notice to make the sidewalk safe, but neglected to do so. The gutter on that side of the street and in front of the place of the accident had been cleared by the defendant on the 8th, and again on the 15th, of February, 1888; but, at the time of the accident, was so clogged as to prevent the flow of water. On these facts, the court found negligence in the defendant, and that such negligence consisted in not removing the cause of the trouble, which was the snow between the curb and sidewalk, or in allowing the gutter to become improperly obstructed, though fully aware that the sidewalk from the ice formations had been a long time, and was likely to continue to be, dangerous to travelers. Is there manifest error in such finding?

The liability of cities and boroughs for injuries occasioned by icy walks has been fully enunciated and explained by this court in repeated decisions, and the nature and limitations of such liability have been clearly defined, and are undoubtedly well understood. It requires no further discussion here. It is sufficient to say that we are aware of no case, in this or any other jurisdiction, wherein the liability of a corporation is extended in such regard beyond responsibility for existing defective conditions within the limits of a walk of which it had, or ought to have had, knowledge, or in which it has been held that a duty devolved upon any such corporation to remove snow or ice, so long as it existed in the state and situation in which it originally fell, or was formed outside the actual limits of the walk, by reason of mere proximity and consequent liability to spread over and thereby render dangerous the walk itself. If such a duty can ever exist, we...