Godfrey v. Connecticut Co.

• Decision Date: 06 October 1922
• Citation: 98 Conn. 63,118 A. 446
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GODFREY v. CONNECTICUT CO. et al.

118 A. 446

98 Conn. 63

GODFREY v. CONNECTICUT CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

October 6, 1922

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; John J. Walsh Judge.

Action by Jonathan Godfrey against the Connecticut Company and others to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the dangerous construction and negligent operation of an amusement apparatus. Judgment for the plaintiff for $1,000, and the defendants appeal. Error judgment set aside, and cause remanded for judgment for the defendants.

In action for injuries to patron of amusement device, in which the only negligence claimed was the operation of a device which was in itself inherently dangerous, the plaintiff is required to prove that the operation of the appliance in the usual way and for the intended purpose was in itself so dangerous that injury should reasonably be expected to occur.

Seth W. Baldwin and Samuel Campner, both of New Haven, for appellants.

John T. L. Hubbard and Clarence R. Hall, both of Bridgeport, for appellee.

BURPEE, J.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was injured " because of the dangerous construction and negligent operation" of an amusement device located on premises owned by the Connecticut Company and leased to the other defendants. Upon the evidence the trial court has found:

" The device upon which the plaintiff was injured was at the time of the accident as operated by the person in charge of the same, inherently dangerous, *** and this fact it was the duty of" the defendants " to know."

After the trial it is not found nor claimed that the contrivance was negligently operated. Therefore the only cause of action set forth in the complaint which may be the basis of a judgment is sufficiently stated in their brief by the counsel for the plaintiff in these words:

" The gravamen of this case is the dangerous character of the device itself, and not in its operation."

The single question, then, which is presented by this appeal, is whether the trial court could, in accordance with the principles of law, reach the conclusion stated in its finding and on which its judgment was rendered.

Upon examination of the record it appears that there is no conflicting evidence relating to the construction or character of the apparatus referred to in the complaint. It is located in a small building and approached through a dark passageway in which are placed various contrivances intended to surprise and amuse visitors. At the inner end of the passageway are 12 stairs leading up to a small room, on one side of which is a seat 5 feet long and about 2 feet above the floor. Closely in front of this seat is the upper end of a chute, which consists of a series of 20 rollers, each 12 inches in diameter and covered with carpet and padded with felt, and which slopes downward to the ground floor at the exit from the building. This chute is 5 feet wide and 24 feet long, and the top roller is 7 feet above the ground floor. The distance between the rollers is only enough to allow them to revolve. By means of a lever the seat can be tipped forward toward the top roller so as to make a continuous straight line with the surface of the chute. There is a light in the small room, showing on the walls in one place the words " Thru the Falls" and an arrow pointing to the seat, and in another place the word " Exit" and an arrow pointing to a door. These words are painted in large red letters. Through the door and exit indicated a person who does not wish to descend by the chute may go down a flight of stairs to the ground floor and out of the building, or he may go back through the passageway by which he entered.

In the operation of the contrivance, when the seat is tipped forward by pulling the lever, its occupants slide off from the seat and onto the top roller in the chute, and thence downward over the other rollers successively, with a bump between each two, until they roll over the lowest and arrive with a final bump upon the ground floor near the exit from the building. The rollers are made to revolve only by the impulse and weight of persons sliding over them.

More than 60 constructions of this kind are in use in amusement resorts in the United States. In the year 1920 more than 11,000 persons patronized the one complained of, and more than 15,000 a similar one in Hartford. No complaint was made by any one except the plaintiff.

The building and the amusement device in question stood in a large park owned by the defendant the Connecticut Company and known as Savin Rock, and in a portion of this park named the " White City," which had been leased to the defendant the S. A. De Walt off Company. This company, with the consent of the Connecticut Company, had sublet to the defendant the Otisco Amusement Company the privilege or concession of erecting and operating in the " White City" this amusement structure, which was called " Thru the Falls" ; and the latter company owned the building and the apparatus and was operating and controlling them independently at the time of the alleged accident to the plaintiff. It invited visitors to enter the building on the payment of an admission fee, and therein to enjoy whatever pleasure they might find on their way through the dark passage to the room in which they would discover the device " Thru the Falls" ; and when they arrived there they were given the opportunity either to go back by the way they had come in, or to go down the stairs to the exit from the building, or, if they wished to continue their pursuit of amusement, to descend to that exit by means of the device so suggestively named. In such circumstances it was unquestionably the duty of those who had the care and supervision of these premises and the structure therein to exercise reasonable care to make and keep them in a reasonably safe condition and to...