Hannon v. City of Waterbury

• Decision Date: 11 April 1927
• Citation: 106 Conn. 13,136 A. 876
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HANNON v. CITY OF WATERBURY.

136 A. 876

106 Conn. 13

HANNON v. CITY OF WATERBURY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 11, 1927

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Edwin C. Dickenson Judge.

Action by Mary Hannon, P. P. A., against the City of Waterbury, for personal injuries caused by defendant's alleged negligence. Judgment of nonsuit was granted, and, from the denial of her motion to set aside the judgment, plaintiff appeals. No error.

James M. Lynch and J. Gregory Lynch, both of Waterbury, for appellant.

Charles O'Connor and Edward J. McDonald, both of Waterbury, for appellee.

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

WHEELER, C.J.

No appeal lay from the granting of the judgment of nonsuit. The appeal, if any, lay from the denial of plaintiff's motion to set aside the judgment, and this is made the second assignment of error. The evidence offered by the plaintiff tended to prove these facts: The city of Waterbury owned and maintained through its board of education in the Willby high school a swimming pool and locker rooms containing metal lockers used in connection with the pool, for the purpose of affording to the children and adults of the city the privileges of this pool. It organized and maintained at the school during the summer months of each year swimming classes, and employed instructors in swimming in order to give to such patrons this instruction. Children were permitted to use the pool on paying 10 cents, and to join the classes on payment of $1 for ten lessons and have the use of the metal lockers and pool, while adults were required to pay 20 cents or $2 for ten lessons, together with the use of the pool and lockers. The sums so paid were kept in a special fund by the city treasurer and disbursed by vote of the board of education to pay teachers, supervisors, janitors' service, printing, advertising, water wings, prizes, and other incidental expenses in connection with the operation of the pool. The board of finance, which had absolute control over the finances of the city, had no control over this fund. The maintenance of the pool was a part of the public school system of the city and for the purpose of teaching the children to swim in order to save themselves from possible future mishap and to develop their bodies and as a result of this, their minds. The money taken in did not pay the entire expense of operating the pool. It did not pay for the large amount of electricity used in operating the motor drying the hair, and lighting, coal, water, chemicals used in the water, nor for the rental value or maintenance of the part of the building used and the equipment, all of which the city provided.

The lower edge of one of these lockers, which had been installed in the dressing room by the city three years prior to the accident, was sharp and jagged, and located about eight inches from the tile floor which was wet and slippery. The plaintiff had finished using the swimming pool, and was standing in the locker room talking to a girl friend, when she stepped off the rubber mat upon the tile floor to let two girls pass, and then had just started for her locker, her left foot being on the mat, when her right foot slipped on the wet floor and went under the side of the metal locker, the edge of which turned down instead of up, and caught her ankle and cut the tendon attached to the lower part of the heel, causing the injuries for which she sues to recover damages. The plaintiff did not know of this condition of the locker, and no one had warned her of it. The same janitor had been in charge of this dressing room ever since the lockers had been installed, and he or his assistants had had daily opportunity to observe and inspect the locker.

The court granted the motion for a nonsuit upon the grounds that the city, in maintaining the swimming pool was (a) performing a governmental function and hence not liable for the failure to discharge such duty with due care; and (b) was not chargeable with negligence because it had had no notice of the condition of the locker through which the plaintiff's injury is alleged to have occurred. If the first of these grounds is well taken, the nonsuit was properly granted, and there is no occasion for passing upon the claimed negligence of the defendant.

" When a municipality is engaged in the performance of a public duty for the public benefit, and not for its own corporate profit, it will be immune from liability for injuries done in the performance of such acts." Richmond v. Norwich, 96 Conn. 582, 588, 115 A. 11, 14.

This principle is too firmly intrenched in repeated decisions of this court to be overturned or modified. Municipal duties which are governmental belong to one of two classes--those imposed " by the state for the benefit of the general public," and those which arise out of legislation " imposed in pursuance of a general policy, manifested by legislation affecting similar corporations, for the particular advantage of the inhabitants of the municipality and only...