Nicholaus v. City of Bridgeport
| Decision Date | 08 August 1933 |
| Citation | 117 Conn. 398,167 A. 826 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | NICHOLAUS v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Carl Foster, Judge.
Action by Anna Nicholaus against the City of Bridgeport to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by a defective highway, brought to the superior court. Verdict for the plaintiff, which the court on defendant's motion set aside, and from this decision the plaintiff appealed.
No error.
Lawrence S. Finkelstone and Michael Strauss, both of Bridgeport, for appellant.
John T. Cullinan and Joseph J. Devine, both of Bridgeport, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
The plaintiff alleged that she was injured by a fall while walking on the easterly shoulder of a public highway in Bridgeport known as Chopsey Hill Road, on December 24, 1930 that her fall was caused by the negligent failure of the defendant to maintain the highway in reasonably safe condition for the use of pedestrians, particularly because it permitted to exist in the highway a hole or cavity about nine inches square and about three inches deep; that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of that defect; and further that she gave due notice of her claim pursuant to the statute. The jury returned a verdict in her favor which, on the defendant's motion, the trial court set aside on the grounds that the evidence did not establish the service of such notice upon the defendant as the statute requires, and that it also failed to show that the defendant city had actual or constructive notice of the defect complained of.
There was evidence that on January 26, 1931, the plaintiff's husband went to the office of the city clerk and there informed the assistant city clerk that the plaintiff had been hurt and was then in the hospital with a broken leg, telling him as near as he could where the plaintiff fell and the time, and the nature of her injury: that the assistant city clerk advised plaintiff's husband that it would be necessary for him to give a notice to the city; that the husband was a factory worker, of foreign extraction, with an imperfect command of English and unfamiliar with legal requirements; that he relied upon the assistant clerk to prepare the proper notice; and that the assistant clerk wrote out a paper and told him to sign it, which he did without reading or learning its contents. This paper appeared in evidence and was as follows:
The portions of the statute which authorizes a recovery for injuries due to defects in highways, which are relevant to the contentions of the parties in this case, are that no action for any such injury shall be maintained against a municipality unless written notice " of such injury and a general description of the same, and of the cause thereof and of the time and place of its occurrence" is given to the clerk of the municipality within sixty days after the occurrence of the accident, but that no notice shall be held invalid or insufficient " by reason of an inaccuracy in describing the injury, or in stating the time, place or cause of its occurrence," if it appears that there was no intention to mislead and the municipality was not in fact misled thereby. General Statutes, § 1420. The purpose of the requirement of notice to a municipality is " to furnish the party against whom a claim was to be made such warning as would prompt him to make such inquiries as he might deem necessary or prudent for the preservation of his interests, and such information as would furnish him a reasonable guide in the conduct of such inquiries, and in obtaining such information as he might deem helpful for his protection." Cassidy v. Town of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Town of Plainville
...Pratt v. Old Saybrook, supra, at 180-81, 621 A.2d 1322; Marino v. East Haven, supra, at 579, 182 A. 225; Nicholaus v. Bridgeport, 117 Conn. 398, 402, 167 A. 826 (1933). In Marino v. East Haven, supra, 120 Conn. at 578, 182 A. 225, the plaintiff's notice contained the statement that he "fell......
-
Ortiz v. Metro. Dist.
...was injured’ ” was insufficient as matter of law due to lack of general description of plaintiff's injuries); Nicholaus v. Bridgeport, 117 Conn. 398, 401–402, 167 A. 826 (1933) (trial court properly set aside jury verdict on ground that plaintiff failed to state cause of injury in her statu......
-
Caron v. Grays Harbor County
... ... rehearing, 172 Wash. 137, 20 P.2d 8; Holmquist v. Queen ... City Construction Co., 175 Wash. 681, 27 P.2d 1066; ... Boitano v. Snohomish County, 11 Wash.2d ... v. City of Santa Barbara, Cal.App., 122 P.2d 643; ... Nicholaus v. City of Bridgeport, 117 Conn. 398, 167 ... A. 826; Rogers v. City and County of ... ...
-
Ortiz v. Metro. Dist.
...was injured' '' was insufficient as matter of law due to lack of general description of plaintiff's injuries); Nicholaus v. Bridgeport, 117 Conn. 398, 401-402, 167 A. 826 (1933) (trial court properly set aside jury verdict on ground that plaintiff failed to state cause of injury in her stat......