Mulligan v. City of New Britain

• Decision Date: 23 March 1897
• Citation: 36 A. 1005,69 Conn. 96
• Parties: MULLIGAN v. CITY OF NEW BRITAIN.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

36 A. 1005

69 Conn. 96

MULLIGAN

v. CITY OF NEW BRITAIN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 23, 1897.

Appeal from superior court, Hartford county; George W. Wheeler, Judge.

Action by Thomas Mulligan against the city of New Britain for personal injuries by being thrown from a carriage on the highway. Defaulted, and heard in damages before the court. From a judgment for $1,000 damages in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Error.

The finding of the court showed the following state of facts: The plaintiff, who was driving a single horse in a covered buggy, had just turned from Park street, in the defendant city, into Main street, when the horse, which was more than ordinarily gentle, although afraid of a steam road roller, caught sight of one on Main street, about 250 feet north of its junction with Park street, and immediately became frightened, and ran away. This was at about 1:15 p. m. The roller had been on the same spot since 9 a. m. It was stationary, and steam and smoke in small quantities were issuing from it. It was a large roller, 10 feet high and 24 feet long, and when either stationary or in motion was, as the defendant well knew, an object calculated to frighten horses of ordinary gentleness traveling upon Main street or the contiguous streets from which it might be visible. Main street was 50 feet wide from curb to curb, and a single-track electric street railway ran through the center, which practically divided the street into two highways, and travelers in vehicles take one side of the track or the other. The roller was on the westerly side of the track, about two feet from the westerly street curb. Park street joins Main street in such a way as to form an obtuse angle with it at "Boyle's corner." A wooden sign, about a foot wide and 4 feet long, had been placed by the defendant on the west side of Main street, 20 or 30 feet north of the junction. It bore, in large, white letters on a red background, the words: "Look Out for the Steam Roller. Street Closed." The sign stood three feet above the ground, and was set about three feet from the west rail of the railway track. A traveler driving from Park street into Main and looking across to the west side of Main street could have seen this sign, and, if of good eyesight, have read the words thereon. A similar sign was set on Main street, near the corner of Arch street, which was the next cross street north. That part of Main street east of said railway was designedly left open by the defendant for public travel, and no signs or warnings were placed on any part of the same to give notice to travelers thereon that this part of the street was closed, or that the steam roller was upon the opposite side of the highway. Said sign was not so placed as to give travelers upon the easterly part of said highway approaching Main street from Park or Elm street, and in the exercise of ordinary care, warning of the presence of said steam roller at the point where it was stationed. The plaintiff had no notice or warning of the said roller, or that the street was closed, or of any danger in traveling upon said highway. The defendant had other signs similar to the one placed upon the westerly side of Main street, which it could have placed on the easterly side of said street, and which, if so placed, would have been a sufficient warning or notice to persons traveling upon said easterly highway of the presence of said roller. The sign so placed upon the westerly side of Main street was not adequate warning or notice to travelers upon the easterly side of Main street approaching from Park street. Public travel by teams on said Main street could have been entirely stopped without public inconvenience of a serious character while said street was being repaired. Access to and egress from the buildings along the line of the street so closed could have been provided without any practical expense or inconvenience to the city, and without any serious inconvenience to the occupants of said buildings, and without endangering such travel thereon. The plaintiff was driving upon Main street, at a moderate rate of speed, from the easterly side of Park street, and using reasonable care, when the horse took fright and ran. He used his utmost exertions to control the horse, but, when about opposite the steam roller, the bit broke, and thereafter he lost entire control of the horse, and it continued running, and the buggy collided with a heavy coal cart, and the plaintiff was thrown in the air, and landed upon his head upon the street, and suffered serious injuries therefrom. The bit broke through a secret defect in it, and through no fault of the plaintiff. The plaintiff knew that the defendant had for months previous to said injury been using said roller in various parts of said city, and for six weeks previous to the day in question upon a street distant about a mile from the point of the accident. He had no knowledge or notice that said steam roller was, or was likely to be, at the point where it was, at the time his horse became frightened, until the horse began to run. The plaintiff had been using the horse in his business 50 times before the accident. He had hired him in place of his own horse at a...