Gray v. Borouoh of Danbury

• Decision Date: 11 February 1887
• Citation: 54 Conn. 574,10 A. 198
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GRAY v. BOROUOH OF DANBURY and another.

10 A. 198

54 Conn. 574

GRAY

v. BOROUOH OF DANBURY and another.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 11, 1887.

Appeal from superior court, Fairfield county.

Plaintiff brought his action against the borough of Danbury and the New York & New England Railroad, to recover for injuries received by colliding with a bridge of the defendant railroad company, constructed over a highway of the defendant borough. The bridge had been originally constructed at a height of 10 1/2 feet above the road-bed, in accordance with plans approved by the borough. After the construction of the bridge, the borough, in repairing the said highway, reduced the space between the road-bed and the bridge to about nine feet and four inches. When plaintiff was injured, he was driving along the said highway upon a medium-sized load of hay, with a gentle team. While descending a hill towards the bridge, a break in the harness caused the team to run rapidly down the hill, keeping, however, in the said highway when plaintiff's head was brought into violent contact with the lower truss of the bridge, from which permanent injury resulted. Plaintiff was guilty of no contributory negligence. The borough was responsible at law for the repair of all highways within its limits. There was some question as to whether the said road upon which the accident occurred was a part of the public highway, but the court below found that it was. Judgment was rendered against the borough for actual damages, and against the railroad company for nominal damages.

S. Tweedy, G. Stoddard, and H. W. Taylor, for appellants. R. E. DeForrest and J. E. Walsh, for appellee.

CARPENTER, J. This is an action against the borough of Danbury and the New York & New England Railroad Company, to recover damages for injuries received by coming in collision with a railroad bridge over the highway. There was a hearing in damages upon default, and judgment against the borough for actual damages, and against the railroad company for nominal damages only. The borough and the plaintiff appealed. Each appeal presents this question: Is the railroad company liable for actual damages?

The material facts are briefly these: In 1880, the railroad company constructed a bridge over West street, in the borough of Danbury, for the purpose of carrying the railroad over the street. The plaintiff was guilty of no contributory negligence. It is expressly found that the railroad company was guilty of no negligence. The bridge was built "upon plans or directions furnished or approved by the borough," and was put at such height above the street as the borough required. When first built, the vertical space between the bridge and the road-bed was ten feet six inches; when the accident happened, it was nine feet and four inches. The difference, 14 inches, was caused by raising the road-bed from year to year, partly from natural causes, and partly from placing gravel thereon by those repairing the street. Therein the court found the borough guilty of negligence. The finding is conclusive in favor of the railroad company, unless the court can see as a conclusion of law, from the facts stated, that the company was negligent. The supposed negligence consists either in a faulty construction of the bridge, or in failing to take measures to preserve the original space between the bridge and the street.

1. Was there negligence in the construction of the bridge? It maybe that 10 1/2 feet is in fact a scant height for a railroad bridge over a highway; but are we justified in saying so as a legal conclusion? We are aware of no law, statute or otherwise, that fixes the height of such bridges. They should be constructed so as reasonably to accommodate the public travel. What is reasonable must depend in some measure upon the circumstances of each particular case. It seems that the railroad company, its engineers, and the railroad commissioners deemed the height sufficient; otherwise, it would have been their duty to insist upon its being greater. The borough, in view of its liability for the highway, insisted that the bridge should be built according to its wishes, which was done. The borough then considered the height sufficient. In addition to this, the fact appears that the injury was caused, not by the bridge being too low in the first instance, but by reason of the height being practically reduced by raising the street. These facts, we think, justify the superior court in finding that the company was not negligent...