Rowell v. Stamford St. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 June 1894
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ROWELL v. STAMFORD ST. R. CO.

30 A. 131

64 Conn. 376

ROWELL

v. STAMFORD ST. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 12, 1894.

Appeal from court of common pleas, Fairfield county; Curtis, Judge.

Action by Edward E. Rowell against the Stamford Street-Railroad Company for damages for injuries to property. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Following was plaintiff's notice to defendant: "To the Stamford Street Railroad Co.: Please take notice that on June 30, 1892, a little before one o'clock in the afternoon, the subscriber suffered an injury to his property on account of driving into an excavation in that part of the highway occupied by your track on Atlantic street, opposite the barber shop at 122 Atlantic street, and which excavation was made by your servants, and negligently left without any signal or notice to a person driving that it was there; the nature of such injury to his property being that his horses were thrown violently to the ground, and both were strained, bruised, and lamed; one especially was injured in the ankle joint, whereby he has been useless to the subscriber since the accident, and is more or less permanently injured. Stamford, August 3, 1892. Edward E. Rowell, by Hart & Keeler, His Attorneys."

Julius B. Curtis and Robert A. Fosdlck, for appellant.

Nathaniel R. Hart and John E. Keeler, for appellee.

ANDREWS, C. J. The notice given by the plaintiff to the defendant was sufficient Tuttle v. Town of Winchester, 50 Conn. 496; Brown v. Town of Southbury, 53 Conn. 213, 1 Atl. 819; Lilly v. Town of Woodstock, 59 Conn. 219, 22 Atl. 40.

Section 1135 of the General Statutes forbids this court to consider on any appeal any errors, "unless they are specifically stated in the reasons of appeal." In this case the reasons of appeal do not state specifically any error of fact. We therefore omit all such claimed errors from consideration.

The track of the defendant is laid on and along Atlantic street, in the city of Stamford. That street is a paved and much-traveled highway in said city, running north and south. The charter of the defendant requires it to maintain in good and sufficient repair that part of any street or highway over which its track is laid, and a space five feet wide on each side of its track. The plaintiff alleged in the complaint that on the 30th day of June, 1892, the defendant dug a trench under its track in said Atlantic street, and "negligently left said trench unguarded, and without any signal, warning, or other indication that there was danger in driving over the said highway;" and that, in consequence of such negligence of the defendant, and without any fault or negligence on his part, his horses, while he was driving over said highway, got into said trench, and were violently thrown, and greatly injured. The defendant, in its first defense, denied all the material allegations of the complaint; and a second defense averred certain facts from which it claimed that the said trench was not left "without any signal, warning, or other indication that there was danger in driving over the said highway." These facts were in turn denied by the plaintiff. Upon these averments and denials the trial was had. It seems not to have been disputed at the trial that there was, on the day mentioned, across and at right angles with the defendant's track in said street, a trench about 7 feet long, 15 inches wide, and 13 inches deep, and extending about 14 inches outside of the track on each side, into which the plaintiff drove, and his horses received the injury of which he complained. It appeared that a day or more prior to the said day the Stamford Water Company, for the purpose of repairing or relaying its pipe in said street, had made an excavation therein for a distance of about 50 feet diagonally across and under the track of the defendant and in so...