Older v. Town of Old Lyme

• Decision Date: 05 May 1938
• Citation: 124 Conn. 283,199 A. 434
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: OLDER v. TOWN OF OLD LYME.

199 A. 434

124 Conn. 283

OLDER v. TOWN OF OLD LYME.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 5, 1938

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Abraham S Bordon, Judge.

Action for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defective sidewalk by Sarah Older against Town of Old Lyme brought to the court of common pleas and tried to the court. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Error and judgment for the defendant directed.

Arthur T. Keefe, of New London, for appellant.

George J. Older, of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS, JJ.

HINMAN, Judge.

The only respect in which we find the record of the trial of this case vulnerable upon appeal pertains to conclusions essential to support the judgment for the plaintiff, that the condition of that part of the sidewalk upon which the plaintiff fell was such that the defendant town is liable under the statute, General Statutes, § 1420, for failure to keep it in repair. To state as a legal proposition, even in general terms, what constitutes such a defect in a highway as will render a municipality liable because of injuries resulting therefrom, is difficult, each case depending to a considerable extent upon its own peculiar circumstances. As good an approximation thereto as has been attained may be said to be that it is such an object or condition in, upon, or near the traveled path as would necessarily obstruct or hinder one in its use for the purpose of traveling, or which from its nature and position would be likely to produce that result or injury to one so traveling upon it. Riccio v. Town of Plainville, 106 Conn. 61, 63, 136 A. 872, 873; Hewison v. New Haven, 34 Conn. 136, 142, 91 Am.Dec. 718. A municipality is not an insurer against accidents occurring on its highways; its duty is not to make its streets and sidewalks entirely safe for users thereof, or even to exercise reasonable care to do so, but only to use reasonable care to make and keep them in a reasonably safe condition for travel. Lovell v. Bridgeport, 116 Conn. 565, 568, 165 A. 795, 796; Bjorkman v. Town of Newington, 113 Conn. 181, 184, 154 A. 346, 347; Meallady v. New London, 116 Conn. 205, 209, 164 A. 391, 392; Petrelli v. New Haven, 116 Conn. 144, 149, 163 A. 759, 761; Porpora v. New Haven, 122 Conn. 80, 97, 187 A. 668, 675. The question whether a highway is defective, the answer to which may depend on a great variety of circumstances, is in general one of fact but determination whether or not the facts found warrant, in law, the conclusions...