Martin v. Stamford Gas & Elec. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1934 |
| Citation | 118 Conn. 319,172 A. 218 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. STAMFORD GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Frederick M. Peasley Judge.
Action by Harry Martin against the Stamford Gas & Electric Company to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant's servants and agents. Verdict for plaintiff was set aside, and plaintiff appeals.
No error.
George Dimenstein and Justus J. Fennel, both of Stamford, for appellant.
Adrian W. Maher, of Bridgeport, Martin E. Gormley, of New Haven, and Edward J. Maher, of Milford, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
The plaintiff was injured as the result of a fall into an open manhole, the cover of which had been removed by the servants and agents of the defendant. Upon motion of the defendant, the trial court set aside the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff upon the ground that his injuries were caused by his own negligence, and the only question upon this appeal is whether it was justified in so doing.
There was little substantial dispute as to the material and essential facts involved. Employees of the defendant were engaged in repairing its cables beneath the west sidewalk of Atlantic street in Stamford, and had removed the cover of a manhole through which there was access to the cables. The manhole was about in the center of the sidewalk, which was seventeen feet wide, and was itself thirty-two inches in diameter. The cover was lying so that it extended about four inches beyond the manhole, leaving about twenty-eight inches of the latter exposed. A red flag was displayed upon a staff which was stuck in a hole in the manhole cover. An employee of the defendant was in the space beneath the sidewalk, another was kneeling upon the sidewalk about three feet from the manhole, and a third had been standing astride of the manhole, but just prior to the accident had stepped away about a foot or so from it. The plaintiff testified that he was walking in a southerly direction, intending to take a bus at the public square a short distance from the scene of the accident; it was Sunday morning, the weather was fair, and he noticed no other persons on the sidewalk; he looked in a store window, then started to walk toward the square, looked at the town hall clock, and saw that it was twenty-seven minutes of 9, looked toward the square and saw that the bus was not there, took a newspaper out of his pocket, and was just starting to read it when he felt himself going and fell into the manhole.
Not only was the evidence as to the physical situation uncontradicted, but the jury, in answer to interrogatories submitted by the court, found that the red flag was displayed over the cover of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. City of New Haven
...there is nothing to prevent or excuse them from doing so is negligence which will prevent their recovery. Martin v. Stamford Gas & Electric Co., 118 Conn. 319, 322, 172 A. 218 (1934). On the other hand, if a plaintiff knew of the dangerous condition of a sidewalk but used reasonable care in......
-
Belchak v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co.
... ... Hence it was ... necessary to set aside their verdict." So in Martin ... v. Stamford Gas & Electric Co., 118 Conn. 319, 321, 172 ... A. 218, in reviewing the action ... ...
- Pendlebury v. City of Bristol
-
Tully v. Demir
...he must have seen it in the reasonable use of his senses (Seabridge v. Poli, 98 Conn. 297, 304, 119 A. 214; Martin v. Stamford Gas & Electric Co., 118 Conn. 319, 321, 172 A. 218), that was not the situation here. A traveler upon a highway is entitled to assume that it is reasonably safe for......