Hoyt v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 March 1906
• Citation: 78 Conn. 709,63 A. 393
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HOYT v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

63 A. 393

78 Conn. 709

HOYT

v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 8, 1906.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Milton A. Shumway, Judge.

Action by Leroy E Hoyt against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Action to recover damages for injuries caused by negligence, brought to the superior court in Fairfield county. Defendant suffered default and moved for a hearing in damages, filing the statutory notice of his intention on the hearing in damages to offer evidence to disprove the paragraphs containing the material allegations of the complaint, and also to offer evidence to prove contributory negligence. Upon the hearing, judgment was rendered for substantial damages. The court made a finding of facts, and the defendant appealed.

William B. Boardman, for appellant. John J. Walsh and John Keogh, for appellee.

HAMERSLEY, J. The plaintiff, about 11 o'clock on the evening of June 27, 1903, at South Norwalk, boarded a train of the defendant to go to Bridgeport. When within about two-thirds of a mile of the Bridgeport station, he fell from the train and was badly injured. He was carried to a hospital where he remained for some time. Eleven months afterwards he brought this action, alleging that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant, and without contributory negligence on his part. Upon the defendant's default, the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment for the amount of such damages resulting from the injury as he could lawfully establish. Since section 742 of the general statutes of 1902, relative to defendant's notice upon hearings in damages, became law, the only duty and burden laid upon the plaintiff upon the hearing in damages is to prove the damage actually resulting from his injuries. Having proved this he is entitled to compensatory damages, unless the defendant, having given the statutory notice, disproves the allegations essential to establish the negligence alleged in the complaint, or proves that the negligence of the plaintiff as well as that of the defendant contributed to the injury, and, in case of such proof, the plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages. In such hearings there are two questions of fact before the trier, one: What is the amount of legal damage resulting from the plaintiff's injuries? This fact the plaintiff must prove; two: Was the defendant innocent of the negligence alleged in the complaint, or was the plaintiff guilty of negligence contributing to the injury which is alleged in the complaint? These facts the defendant must prove, and in the absence of any proof, or of sufficient proof to legally satisfy the court, judgment for substantial damages must follow. Hourigan v. Norwich, 77 Conn. 358, 362, 307, 59 Atl. 487; Brennan v. Berlin Iron Bridge Co., 74 Conn. 382, 387, 50 Atl. 1030; Finken v. Elm City Brass Co., 73 Conn. 423, 427, 47 Atl. 670; Ockershausen v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 71 Conn. 617, 621, 42 Atl. 650.

In this case the complaint alleges that (1) the plaintiff was a passenger riding in the smoking car of a train which left South Norwalk at 11:15 p. in., which train stopped near the Main street crossing in Bridgeport, and the plaintiff, believing the train had reached the Bridgeport station where he had intended to alight, rose from his seat and started toward the rear of the car, and when within a few feet of the rear door the train was violently started, and the plaintiff thereby was thrown from the door, striking the outside platform, from which he fell through an open gateway, which ordinarily incloses the platform while the train is in motion and at other times except when the train is at a station, and fell under and was run over by the wheels of one of the cars of said train; that (2) by being thus thrown from the car the plaintiff sustained the injuries described; that (3) the injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant in violently starting the train after coming to a stop, in leaving the door of the car open and unprotected, in leaving the gate on the platform open and the platform unprotected, in the failure of the brakeman to inform the plaintiff that the train had not reached the station, in his failure to attempt in any way to prevent the plaintiff leaving the car at a place known to the brakeman to be dangerous, and in his failure to protect or warn the plaintiff in any way; that (4) there was no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant gave notice that it would disprove each one of these allegations. The trial court found that the defendant had failed to disprove its negligence as alleged. No error of the court in reaching this conclusion is assigned. No claim is made that any of the acts of negligence alleged, except the leaving open of the car door and the violent starting of the train,...