Matchulot v. City of Ansonia
| Citation | 116 Conn. 55,163 A. 595 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 27 December 1932 |
| Parties | MATCHULOT v. CITY OF ANSONIA (two cases). |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Carl Foster, Judge.
Actions by Emily Matchulot, administrator of the estate of Adolph Matchulot, and by Emily Matchulot, administrator of the estate of Walter Matchulot, against the City of Ansonia, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's decedents alleged to have been caused by a defective fence. The cases were tried to the jury. Verdict for the plaintiff in each case, and defendant appeals.
Arthur Klein, of New Haven, and Frederick M. McCarthy, of Ansonia for appellant.
Samuel Reich and Philip Reich, both of Bridgeport (Maurice Kornblut of Ansonia, on the brief), for appellee.
The finding, by which the adequacy of the charge must be tested, states that the defendant offered evidence that in the afternoon of Friday, December 11, 1931, employees of the American Brass Company, without the direction or knowledge of the defendant city, removed the five-by-five inch timber which formed the top rail of a barrier fence between North Fourth street and a canal on the brass company's property, and moved the bottom rail to and nailed it along the top of the posts, and that such was the condition of the fence at the time (Sunday evening, December 13th) when an automobile driven by Adolph Marchulot went through it into the canal, killing him and his son Walter, who was riding with him. It states, further, that evidence was offered that the fence had been regularly inspected and repaired by the city and was sound, intact, and in good condition; also, that North Fourth street is in a remote section of the city, very little used, and the vicinity sparsely settled. The complaint alleged that the defendant had notice, either actual or constructive, of the condition of the fence at the time of the accident.
Ordinarily, a municipality is not liable for an injury caused by a defect in or pertaining to a public highway unless it has neglected some duty in respect thereto after it had notice of the defect. Whether it is to be charged with constructive notice depends upon the circumstances, regard being had to the nature of the defect, whether palpable and manifestly dangerous, or otherwise, the place, the extent of the use of the highway, and the time the defect had existed. The test is whether, had the city exercised reasonable supervision, in view of the whole situation, it would have discovered the defect a sufficient time before the injury to have had a reasonable opportunity to guard against it. Unless the facts are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petrelli v. City of New Haven
...the exercise of a reasonable supervision of its streets. Crotty v. Danbury, 79 Conn. 379, 386, 65 A. 147; Matchulot, Adm'x, v. City of Ansonia, 116 Conn. 55, 163 A. 595. The charge of the court as delivered on the question presumptive notice was in accordance with this rule; and, under the ......
- Barbieri v. Pandiscio
-
Zeidwig v. City Of Derby
...Am.St.Rep. 197; Gustafson v. Meriden, 103 Conn. 598, 605, 131 A. 437; Jennes v. Norwich, 107 Conn. 79, 82, 140 A. 119; Matchulot v. Ansonia, 116 Conn. 55, 58, 163 A. 595; Roth v. MacDonald, 124 Conn. 461, 463, 200 A. 725. We have no need to consider, on the appeal of the city, whether or no......
-
Falkowski v. MacDonald
... ... of reasonable care and a reasonable opportunity afforded in ... which to remedy it. Matchulot v. Ansonia, 116 Conn ... 55, 163 A. 595; Meallady v. New London, 116 Conn ... 205, 164 A. 391; ... ...