Messina v. City of New Haven

• Decision Date: 27 July 1934
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MESSINA v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN.

174 A. 188

119 Conn. 166

MESSINA v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 27, 1934

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Alfred C. Baldwin Judge.

Action by Anna Messina against the City of New Haven to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by a defective sidewalk, brought to the superior court in New Haven county and tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff.

Error and new trial ordered.

Louis Feinmark and Alfred F. Celentano, both of New Haven, for appellant.

Martin E. Gormley, of New Haven, and Adrian W Maher, of Bridgeport (Edward J. Maher, of Milford, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

BANKS Judge.

The plaintiff received injuries as the result of a fall upon the sidewalk on the easterly side of Franklin street in the city of New Haven which she claims was defective. She offered evidence and claimed to have proved that for a number of years the sidewalk at the point where she fell was cracked broken, and uneven, and contained three depressions each of which was about a foot in length and breadth and one and one-fourth inches in depth; that on the afternoon of December 17, 1932, there was a snowstorm which continued until about 3 a. m. on December 18th; that about 8 a. m. on that morning she fell as the result of stepping into one of the holes in the sidewalk which was concealed by the fall of snow, which was about two inches in depth.

The court charged the jury that in order to recover damages for injuries caused by a defective street or sidewalk the failure of the city to keep it in a reasonably safe condition for public travel must have been the sole cause of the injury. It added: " If some other cause combines with the defect, such as the negligence of a third party or a natural cause such as a snow or ice storm, and the results of the snow or ice storm combining with the defect were of such recent occurrence before the injury that the city or town did not have reasonable time or opportunity to reasonably overcome or remove the condition of danger produced by such snow or ice storm, then the injured person cannot recover under our law since it could not, under such circumstances, be said that the failure of the city or town to maintain its streets or sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for public travel caused the injury." This was not a correct statement of our law.

It is true, as stated in the charge, that when an injury results from a defect combined with the culpable negligence of a third party it cannot be said to have been caused by the defect, and cannot be made the subject of recovery under the statute giving a right of action against a municipality for injuries resulting from such defect. Bartram v. Town of Sharon, 71 Conn. 686, 43 A. 143, 46 L.R.A. 144, 71 Am.St.Rep. 225. Where, however, the injury is the result of a defect...