Judson v. Borough of Winsted

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtPRENTICE, J.
Citation68 A. 999,80 Conn. 384
PartiesJUDSON v. BOROUGH OF WINSTED.
Decision Date03 March 1908
68 A. 999
80 Conn. 384

JUDSON
v.
BOROUGH OF WINSTED.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 3, 1908.


68 A. 1000

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Litchfield County; Gideon H. Welch, Judge.

Action by Lewis B. Judson against the borough of Winsted. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Walter Holcomb and William H. Blodgett, for appellant. Wilbur G. Manchester, for appellee.

PRENTICE, J. Upon the trial it was, in effect, conceded that the plaintiff's horse while being driven by the plaintiff along one of the public streets of the defendant borough ran away and injured himself and also the buggy and harness, to the plaintiff's pecuniary damage, in consequence of becoming frightened by a stream of water which was being discharged from one of the borough hydrants under the immediate direction and control of one Griswold, who was employed on behalf of the borough by one Andrews, the superintendent of the borough waterworks, and was engaged at the time in the duty assigned to him by Andrews, of flushing out the borough hydrants. The defenses which were interposed involved two propositions: The first, embodied in the first defense of the answer, that Griswold was not guilty of negligence in the premises; and the second, set up in the second defense, that any negligence on his part in the performance of the act in which he was engaged could not render the defendant liable, since it was done in the performance of a duty cast upon the borough as a governmental agent. The jury found that Griswold's conduct was negligent, and no complaint is made of the court's instructions upon that branch of the case.

With respect to the second branch of the case, the defendant presented a series of requests to charge. These were not framed with precision, but they plainly indicated the defendant's purpose to rely upon the defense of governmental agency, set up in its answer, as the prominent, if not the chief, feature of its case. The principle thus invoked is a familiar one, and the law involved has become well settled in this jurisdiction. As applicable to the present situation, the law is that if, in respect to the act in which Griswold was engaged, the defendant was, through him as its agent or servant, in the exercise of governmental powers vested in it as the agent of the state in the administration of government, it would not be accountable to third persons for the manner in which the granted powers were being exercised, or for Griswold's conduct in the premises. If, on the other hand, it was, in respect to Griswold's then employment, engaged in the exercise, through him, of powers granted to it as a "special" privilege for the benefit or advantage, either wholly or in part, of the borough itself or of its inhabitants,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Lober v. Kansas City, No. 31596.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 17, 1934
    ...L. R. A. (N. S.) 239, 133 Am. St. Rep. 1078), or in connection with flushing hydrants solely to better fire protection (Judson v. Winsted, 80 Conn. 384, 68 A. 999, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 91), or the like. On the other hand, a municipality which supplies water to its citizens, and charges there......
  • Bergner v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • February 25, 1957
    ...v. City of New Haven, 37 Conn. [144 Conn. 286] 475, 483; Jewett v. City of New Haven, 38 Conn. 368, 386; Judson v. Borough of Winsted, 80 Conn. 384, 386, 68 A. 999, 15 L.R.A.,N.S., 91; Pope v. City of New Haven, 91 Conn. 79, 80, 99 A. 51, L.R.A.1917B, 1239; 18 McQuillin, Municipal Corporati......
  • Irvine v. Greenwood
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 2, 1911
    ...domestic purposes, it was acting outside of true governmental functions, and engaging in private business. Judson v. Borough of Winsted, 80 Conn. 384, 68 Atl. 999, 15 L. R, A. (N. S.) 91. At this time it will hardly be doubted that when a city, under legislative sanction, undertakes to furn......
  • Lober v. Kansas City, No. 34710.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 14, 1936
    ...95 Pa. Super. Ct. 69; Goldman v. Boston, 174 N.W. 686; Miller v. City, 77 N.W. 788; Pointer v. Ry. Co., 269 Mo. 119; Judson v. Winsted, 80 Conn. 384, 68 Atl. 999; 45 C.J., p. 1207, sec. 775. (2) The court erred in giving plaintiffs' Instruction 3. Interest is not recoverable in actions foun......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Lober v. Kansas City, No. 31596.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 17, 1934
    ...L. R. A. (N. S.) 239, 133 Am. St. Rep. 1078), or in connection with flushing hydrants solely to better fire protection (Judson v. Winsted, 80 Conn. 384, 68 A. 999, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 91), or the like. On the other hand, a municipality which supplies water to its citizens, and charges there......
  • Bergner v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • February 25, 1957
    ...v. City of New Haven, 37 Conn. [144 Conn. 286] 475, 483; Jewett v. City of New Haven, 38 Conn. 368, 386; Judson v. Borough of Winsted, 80 Conn. 384, 386, 68 A. 999, 15 L.R.A.,N.S., 91; Pope v. City of New Haven, 91 Conn. 79, 80, 99 A. 51, L.R.A.1917B, 1239; 18 McQuillin, Municipal Corporati......
  • Irvine v. Greenwood
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 2, 1911
    ...domestic purposes, it was acting outside of true governmental functions, and engaging in private business. Judson v. Borough of Winsted, 80 Conn. 384, 68 Atl. 999, 15 L. R, A. (N. S.) 91. At this time it will hardly be doubted that when a city, under legislative sanction, undertakes to furn......
  • Lober v. Kansas City, No. 34710.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 14, 1936
    ...95 Pa. Super. Ct. 69; Goldman v. Boston, 174 N.W. 686; Miller v. City, 77 N.W. 788; Pointer v. Ry. Co., 269 Mo. 119; Judson v. Winsted, 80 Conn. 384, 68 Atl. 999; 45 C.J., p. 1207, sec. 775. (2) The court erred in giving plaintiffs' Instruction 3. Interest is not recoverable in actions foun......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT