New Britain Trust Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 June 1958
• Citation: New Britain Trust Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 143 A.2d 438, 145 Conn. 390 (Conn. 1958)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: The NEW BRITAIN TRUST COMPANY, Executor (Estate of Sophie Galbraith), v. The NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 438

143 A.2d 438

145 Conn. 390

The NEW BRITAIN TRUST COMPANY, Executor (Estate of Sophie Galbraith), v.The NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 24, 1958.

Edwin H. Hall, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Thomas P. Hackett and Philip Baroff, New Haven, for appellant.(named defendant).

Roger F. Gleason, New Britain, for appellee(plaintiff).

Before DALY, C. J., and BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ.

MURPHY, Associate Justice.

The defendant railroad, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, has appealed from a judgment rendered upon a verdict for the plaintiff which the trial court refused to set aside.The only assignment of error which we are to consider relates to the action of the trial court in denying the motion to set aside the verdict.The assignment of error attacking certain portions of the finding is treated as abandoned, since it is not mentioned in the defendants' brief.Samelson v. Harper's Furs, Inc., 144 Conn. 368, 369, 131 A.2d 827.It is unnecessary to refer to the finding, because the action of the court in denying the motion to set aside the verdict is tested by the evidence, not by the finding.Nicholson Realty, Inc. v. Libby, 144 Conn. 555, 557, 135 A.2d 738.

The plaintiff is the executor under the will of Sophie Galbraith, late of New Britain, who died on May 14, 1956, from injuries sustained in a fall on an icy sidewalk in front of 10 Railroad Arcade in New Britain on January 3, 1956.The defendant maintains that there was no evidence from which the jury could have found that the defendant actually knew of the icy condition at the locus of Mrs. Galbraith's fall, or that the particular icy condition at that point had existed for such a length of time that the defendant was charged with constructive notice of it.

The Railroad Arcade, so-called, is a seventeen-foot-wide sidewalk extending easterly from Main Street to the railroad station.It is under the control of the defendant and lies between the railroad tracks on the north and a large commercial building on the south.The building houses a number of stores fronting the arcade, which is used by the general public as a passway to the railroad station and the stores.The obligation rested upon the defendant to use reasonable care to keep the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition for the lawful use of the public.Tenney v. Pleasant Realty Corporation, 136 Conn. 325, 329, 70 A.2d 138;Sawicki v. Connecticut Ry. & Lighting Co., 129 Conn. 626, 631, 30 A.2d 556.

During the night of January 2, 1956, and early morning of January 3, it had snowed.At 8 a. m. on January 3, it was raining lightly.The temperature was then twenty-seven degrees.At noontime, the temperature was thirty degrees and there was a light rain.It stopped raining between 1 p. m. and 2 p. m.The plaintiff's decedent fell on a sheet of glare ice in front of the store of Hugh Graham Associatesat 10 Railroad Arcade about 3:45 p. m. The snow had been removed from an area four to five feet in width and about sixteen feet long in front of the store.With the exception of this cleared space, the entire passway was covered with trampled snow which was hard and slippery.As there was no evidence that it had snowed after 8 a. m. on January 3, the jury could have reasonably found that the hard-packed, slippery snow had existed for up to eight hours before Mrs. Galbraith fell.Had it been the cause of her fall, the jury might reasonably have concluded that the condition had existed for a sufficient length of time for the defendant to have had constructive notice of it in view of its location in the center of the city.But the evidence shows that her fall was occasioned by the glare ice in front of 10 Railroad Arcade and not by the trampled snow throughout the rest of the passway.It was therefore necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had...