Hayes v. New Britain Gas Light Co.

• Citation: 185 A. 170
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 14 May 1936
• Parties: HAYES v. NEW BRITAIN GAS LIGHT CO.

185 A. 170

HAYES
v.
NEW BRITAIN GAS LIGHT CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 14, 1936.

185 A. 171

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Patrick B. O'Sullivan, Judge.

Action by Anna J. Hayes against the New Britain Gas Light Company to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence of defendant. From a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

No error.

Argued before MALTBIE, C. J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN, JJ.

Cyril F. Gaffney, of New Britain (Bernard F. Gaffney, of New Britain, on the brief), for appellant.

George J. Coyle, of New Britain (Thomas F. McDonough, of New Britain, on the brief), for appellee.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to set the verdict aside. The jury could reasonably have found the following facts: James Lynch, an employee of the defendant, went to the house occupied by the plaintiff, for the purpose of reading a gas meter which was in the cellar. Entrance to the cellar was gained through a trapdoor in a small pantry off the kitchen. The door constituted almost the entire floor of the pantry. When opened, it leaned against the wall in such a way as not to interfere with the door of the pantry. Lynch entered the kitchen and was directed by the plaintiff to go to the cellar through the pantry. He opened the trapdoor, went to the cellar, and on his return left the trapdoor open and closed the door to the pantry. The pantry was without windows and unlighted. After he left, the plaintiff, having occasion to go to the pantry, opened the door, stepped over the threshold, and fell into the cellar, suffering the injuries to recover damages for which she brought this action. The contentions of the defendant are that Lynch was under no duty to close the door, and therefore could not be charged with negligence in not doing so, and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

The defendant in its brief speaks of Lynch as a licensee upon the premises and seeks to apply in determining his obligation to use care the same principles as are involved when a licensee suffers injury upon the premises of a landowner. The description of Lynch as a licensee is open to question in view of his purpose in going upon the premises, but we have no need to consider that matter. An owner of land ordinarily owes no duty to a licensee, any more than he does to a trespasser, to keep his premises in a safe condition, because the...