Lisa v. Yale University
| Citation | 191 A. 346,122 Conn. 646 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 07 April 1937 |
| Parties | LISA v. YALE UNIVERSITY. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Kenneth Wynne, Judge.
Action by Anne Lisa against Yale University to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. From a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
No error.
Martin E. Gormley, of New Haven, and Adrian W. Maher, of Bridgeport for appellant.
Harry M. French and Albert W. Cretella, both of New Haven, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN JJ.
It is undisputed that upon the evidence the jury could properly have found that the plaintiff shortly after 3 o'clock on the afternoon of February 22, 1936, while walking on the defendant's property along a semicircular passageway to the main entrance of its Institute of Human Relations, for the purpose of visiting a patient therein during the prescribed visiting hour, in the exercise of due care on her part, slipped and fell on ice accumulated on the walk causing the serious injury complained of. The sole question determinative of this appeal is whether the evidence warranted the jury's further conclusion that the slippery condition of the walk existing at this place was due to the defendant's negligence. The defendant contends that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that it had exhausted every possible effort to remedy this situation caused by changing climatic conditions and to keep the premises reasonably safe, so that to hold it liable would be to impose upon it the duty of an insurer, and that therefore as a matter of law the verdict in the plaintiff's favor should be set aside.
In support of its contention the defendant directs attention to the evidence, that this had been an unusually severe winter, that snow previously removed from this walk had been piled along the sides where it froze, that February 22d was a clear day with a temperature range of from 15 to 27 degrees above zero, that the slippery condition at the place in question was due to new ice formed from water from the melting snow, that to guard against this danger the defendant had available an ample supply of sand, tools with which to spread it, a supervisor to see that it was properly applied, and three assistants who were instructed to do the sanding upon this and other walks of the defendant in that locality, that during that day between 7 o'clock in the morning and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, this particular walk was repeatedly inspected and sanded.
There was also, however, evidence that Devlin, the defendant's employee, who had direct charge of the sanding of this walk, knew that during that day water was dripping onto the walk and freezing, that at shortly after 3 o'clock when the plaintiff fell, the walk for its entire width at that point was very glassy and slippery from ice formed from water from melting snow and that this had no sand on it, that this same condition persisted from some time before the plaintiff's fall until after 4 o'clock, that the defendant's employee stationed just inside the entrance was notified of this condition at 3 o'clock, that though it was her duty to report it for necessary attention, she failed to do so, and it was not in fact so reported until after 4 o'clock, that notwithstanding the defendant had sand available and employees to apply it within easy call, the ice upon this much-used walk remained unsanded until 4 o'clock. In addition to these facts as to which there was direct testimony the jury might have reasonably inferred from the character of the patch of ice, the temperature during the day and its formation from the dripping of water upon the passageway that the condition had existed for some considerable space of time; and they might also have reasonably inferred that the dripping of the water was an obvious source of danger which should have put the agents of the defendant upon notice of the need of careful oversight and that the visiting hours from 3 to 4 o'clock was the time when the entrance would be most used.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Isaacson v. Husson College
...remedial action as they had done in the case of the condition of the walk between Hart Hall and the apex. See, Lisa v. Yale University, 1937, 122 Conn. 646, 191 A. 346; Thornton v. First National Stores, Inc., 1960, 340 Mass. 222, 163 N.E.2d 264; Rogers v. Tore, Ltd., 1969, 85 Nev. 548, 459......
-
Harris v. Clinton
...most favorable construction of which it is reasonably capable. Horvath v. Tontini, 126 Conn. 462, 464, 11 A.2d 846; Lisa v. Yale University, 122 Conn. 646, 648, 191 A. 346; Toth v. Perry, 120 Conn. 680, 681, 182 A. 464; Anderson v. Colucci, 119 Conn. 241, 244, 175 A. 681. Moreover, the deci......
-
Holmes v. McLean
...no appeal from the court's charge, it is to be presumed that the jury were correctly instructed on this subject. Lisa v. Yale University, 122 Conn. 646, 649, 191 A. 346. The challenging issue raised by the plaintiff is whether there was sufficient evidence produced by the defendant to warra......
-
Vogel v. Sylvester
...only. Since no assignment of error is addressed to the charge, we assume that it was adequate and legally correct. Lisa v. Yale University, 122 Conn. 646, 649, 191 A. 346; Harris v. Clinton, 142 Conn. 204, 209, 112 A.2d 885; Butler v. Steck, 146 Conn. 114, 116, 148 A.2d The court's action i......