Gothreau v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1961 |
| Citation | 148 Conn. 65,167 A.2d 244 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ovid Gothreau et al. v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Jay W. Jackson, Hartford, for the appellant (named plaintiff).
William L. Hadden, Jr., New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Clarence A. Hadden, New Haven, for the appellees (defendants).
Before BALDWIN, C.J., and KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JJ.
The defendant Westcott Construction Corporation was engaged in constructing a bridge in Putnam for the defendant railroad. The named plaintiff, hereinafter called the plaintiff, was employed by a firm which supplied kerosene to Westcott at the bridge site. Westcott knew that it was the practice of the plaintiff's employer to require a receipt for all deliveries. On three occasions prior to March 28, 1957, the plaintiff delivered kerosene to the project, and on each occasion he sought out Westcott's foreman at different places around the construction area to obtain a receipt. The plaintiff was not restricted from going anywhere in the area, and there were no signs or barricades warning of any danger. On March 28, 1957, he made a delivery of kerosene to the construction site. He searched for the foreman to obtain a receipt and was told by employees of Westcott that the foreman was on an abutment about thirty-three feet above the ground. The plaintiff climbed a ladder to the top of the abutment and started to walk toward the foreman, who was about forty feet away. He reached a point about ten feet from the foreman when his foot struck some object and he was caused to fall to the railroad tracks thirty feet below, sustaining serious injuries. No evidence was presented as to the nature of the object which caused the plaintiff's fall or how long it had been there. During argument, counsel for the plaintiff stated that the appeal was abandoned as to the defendant railroad.
It is unnecessary to determine whether the status of the plaintiff, when he climbed the abutment, was that of an invitee, as he claims, or no more than that of a licensee, as Westcott contends. Knapp v. Connecticut Theatrical Corporation, 122 Conn. 413, 416, 190 A. 291. In either case, it was fundamental to a recovery by the plaintiff that he establish that his injuries were caused by negligence on the part of one or both of the defendants. The plaintiff was required to remove this issue from the realm of surmise and speculation. Burke...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teitelman v. Bloomstein
...element without which a plaintiff has no case. Hence, this causal relation must be alleged and proved. Gothreau v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 148 Conn. 65, 67, 167 A.2d 244; Kinderavich v. Palmer, 127 Conn. 85, 15 A.2d 83; Mahoney v. Beatman, 110 Conn. 184, 147 A. 762, 66 A.L.R. 1121; see G......
-
Monahan v. Montgomery
...conjecture and speculation. Lombardi v. J. A. Bergren Dairy Farms, Inc., 153 Conn. 19, 25, 213 A.2d 449; Gothreau v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 148 Conn. 65, 67, 167 A.2d 244; Gillette v. Plante Properties, Inc., 207 N.E.2d 304 (Mass.) In reviewing the rulings of the court in denying the ......
-
Krause v. Bridgeport Hospital
...on the part of the jury. Lombardi v. J. A. Bergren Dairy Farms, Inc., 153 Conn. 19, 25, 213 A.2d 449; Gothreau v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 148 Conn. 65, 67, 167 A.2d 244; Chasse v. Albert, 147 Conn. 680, 683, 166 A.2d 148. The plaintiffs having failed to prove even one of the allegations ......
-
Insurance Co. of North America v. City of New Haven
...pilots of the peril. See Safeco Insurance Co. v. City of Watertown, 529 F.Supp. 1220, 1226 (D.S.D.1981); Gothreau v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 148 Conn. 65, 67, 167 A.2d 244 (1961); Romenici v. Trumbull Electric Mfg. Co., 145 Conn. 691, 694, 146 A.2d 416 B) The Breach of Duty The parties, ......