Lepri v. Town of Branford

• Decision Date: 02 December 1964
• Citation: 205 A.2d 486,152 Conn. 210
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Emma LEPRI v. TOWN OF BRANFORD et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 486

205 A.2d 486

152 Conn. 210

Emma LEPRI v. TOWN OF BRANFORD et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 2, 1964.

Nathan A. Resnik, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Cornelius T. Driscoll, Branford, and John J. Resnik, New Haven, for appellant (defendant borough of Branford).

Charles Henchel and Alphonse DiBenedetto, New Haven, on the brief for appellee (plaintiff).

Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, COMLEY and SHANNON, JJ.

COMLEY, Associate Justice.

The jury in this case might reasonably have found that, as the plaintiff was walking with two companions in a westerly direction on Main Street in the defendant borough of Branford, she tripped and fell in front of a store owned by the defendant A. Horwitz of Branford, Inc., and injured her left leg. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff against the borough of Branford alone. In its appeal from the judgment rendered thereon, the borough made numerous assignments of error, but the one which merits the most serious consideration is the one reciting that the court should have granted the motion to set aside the verdict since it was unsupported by the evidence. In reviewing this claim, we do not examine the finding but only the evidence as set forth in the appendices to the briefs and in the exhibits. Practice Book § 718; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 185.

It appears that, after the plaintiff fell, she and one of her companions went by bus to New Haven. They soon returned and went to the scene of the accident, where they observed a jagged triangular hole in the concrete sidewalk. Although the testimony of the plaintiff and her companion as to the nature and exact location of the hole is not as precise as might be desired, we take note of the fact that both spoke through an interpreter. Under these circumstances, the question of credibility was peculiarly within the province of the jury. Lampe v. Simpson, 106 Conn. 356, 358, 138 A. 141. We conclude that the jury could reasonably find that the plaintiff's injury was caused by a defect in the sidewalk and that the defect had been there sufficiently long to charge the borough with notice of its existence. Upon the latter issue, the jury were entitled to consider the character and appearance of the defect as it was depicted in the photographs introduced in evidence. Cagianello v. Hartford, 135 Conn. 473, 477, 66 A.2d 83.

The borough also claims that the plaintiff failed to establish that she fell on the portion of the sidewalk under its control and not on the portion owned by and under the control of the Horwitz store. The parties apparently agree that no formal action was ever taken by the borough to establish a street line. It is undisputed, however, that there is on file in the office of the town clerk of Branford a map which is entitled 'Map of Main Street Showing Street Lines Established May 1st 1897.' In the course of the trial and in their briefs, both parties refer to a 'deeded street...