Schmidt v. Town of Manchester

• Decision Date: 30 April 1918
• Citation: 103 A. 654,92 Conn. 551
• Parties: SCHMIDT v. TOWN OF MANCHESTER.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

103 A. 654

92 Conn. 551

SCHMIDT

v. TOWN OF MANCHESTER.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 30, 1918.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Lucien F. Burpee, Judge.

Action by Clara Schmidt against the Town of Manchester, to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from negligent maintenance of a sidewalk. Demurrer to complaint sustained, judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Error, and new trial ordered.

Herbert O. Bowers, of Manchester, for appellant. Olin R. Wood, of Manchester, and Alexander Arnott, of Hartford, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. The complaint in this case was demurred to upon the ground that it appeared that no sufficient notice descriptive of the plaintiff's injuries, the time, place, and cause of the occurrence was given as required by section 2020 of the General Statutes, as amended by chapter 168 of the Public Acts of 1909.

The notice in question reads as follows: "South Manchester, Conn., Oct. 2, 1915.

"Town of Manchester, South Manchester, Conn.: I hereby give you notice that on Tuesday evening, September 28th, while walking along the sidewalk or sidepath on the north side of Hartford road near the James Loomis place, so called, I stepped into a gully which I am informed has been in existence at that place for several months, and sustained a fall. By reason of the fall I suffered severe sprains and one or more of the ligaments of my foot wore broken. I am now under the care of Dr. Rice. I intend to claim damages therefor."

We may assume that there was but one sidewalk on the north side of the Hartford road. Therefore the notice necessarily implies that the place of the accident was upon the sidewalk on the north side of this Hartford road. After this follows the statement that the plaintiff was injured near the James Ix>omis place. It does not appear that there was another person by that name thereabouts. The defect is described as a gully in the sidewalk which, it is indirectly stated, had been in existence for several months. Such a defect could have been easily identified, unless we are to assume that there were several such defects in that immediate vicinity. Thus we have the four facts which identify the place of the injuries, the name of the road, the side of this road, that it was near the residence of a certain, individual, and a gully in the walk which has been in existence for months. This indicates clearly enough the place of the accident.

Counsel for the defendant contend that the cause of the accident is not stated in the notice with reasonable clearness. The substance of the statement upon this subject is that the plaintiff was injured by stepping into a gully in the sidewalk by reason of which she sustained a fall. These facts were sufficient to direct the attention of the town with reasonable certainty to the cause of the accident, so that an intelligent investigation could be made by the officers of the town. This satisfied the spirit and purpose of the statute. Delaney v. Waterbury & M. T. Co., 91 Conn. 177, 182, 183, 184, 99 Atl. 503.

The notice complained of states that as a result of the accident the plaintiff suffered severe sprains one or more of the ligaments of her foot were broken, and that she was under the care of Dr. Rice. The defendant complains of this part of the notice because it is said to be vague and uncertain. The purpose of such a notice is, not to allege all the circumstances necessary to support an action, but to give to the municipality a general description of the injuries complained of. This has been done in the present case. Cassidy v. Southbury, 86 Conn. 45, 49, 50, 84 Atl. 291.

The notice is not full and...