Scoville v. Town Of West Hartford.
| Decision Date | 20 July 1944 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SCOVILLE v. TOWN OF WEST HARTFORD. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; McEvoy, Judge.
Action by Helen W. Scoville against the Town of West Hartford to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defective sidewalk, brought to the Superior Court and tried to the court. Judgment for defendant, and appeal by plaintiff.
No error.
Wallace W. Brown, of Hartford, for appellant.
DeLancey Pelgrift, of Hartford, for appellee.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for injuries which she sustained as the result of a tall on a public sidewalk maintained by the defendant town. Judgment was for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.
The following facts were found by the trial court and are not subject to material correction. The plaintiff slipped and fell on a small patch of ice, about eighteen inches in length and twelve inches in width, which had formed in and had completely filled a shallow depression in the walk about three-eighths of an inch in depth. The depression had existed for several months prior to the plaintiff's fall, which occurred at about 9:15 o'clock on the morning of February 19, 1942. The ice had formed in the early evening of February 18. Early in the morning on February 19 there had been a light fall of snow, which covered the ice at the time the plaintiff fell. The patch of ice had not been sanded.
The trial court adopted the plaintiff's draft finding descriptive of the locus, with immaterial variations. Briefly summarized, the finding shows these further facts: The section of the walk upon which the plaintiff's fall occurred was not quite flush with the rest of the walk but was depressed at one point about three-eights of an inch; that, because of the contours of the surrounding land, water falling or forming or flowing onto the walk could not readily drain away; and that such drainage was impeded, especially with the ground in a frozen condition, as to water accumulating in any depression or depressions in the sidewalk. It stated conclusions, among others, that the ice completely filled whatever slight depression existed and covered all the irregularities of the walk so that the surface was a smooth glare of ice upon which the plaintiff fell, and that she was not injured by stepping into a hole, but by slipping on the ice. These conclusions were warranted by the evidence and were logically reached.
The plaintiff's first contention, briefly stated, is that ground conditions at the site of the fall were such that the accumulation of water with consequent formation of ice in wintertime, was inevitable; that the causal connection was simple and direct because, although the ice which filled the depression was a proximate cause of the injury, the long existing depression, slight as it may have been, was the cause of the ice upon which the plaintiff fell, and that the defendant was liable. We held that this claim was unsound in Agriesto v. Fairfield, 130 Conn. 410, 416, 35 A.2d 15, and cases there cited. However, the plaintiff has urged the contention with such fervor that we amplify what we said there. The construction and maintenance of highways is, by our common law, a governmental act, and for negligence in the performance of that act the municipality is not liable. Riccio v. Plainville, 106 Conn. 61, 64, 136 A. 872. On the other hand, it is liable under the statute when a person is injured in person or property ‘by means of a defective’ condition in the road. Gen.St.1930, § 1420. It becomes necessary then to draw the line between the freedom from liability at common law and the liability imposed by the statute; or, to state the matter another way, to determine how far the statute limits the common-law principle. We have repeatedly held that liability under the statute arises only when there is notice of a defective condition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Ives
......Trowbridge, Glastonbury, with whom were James T. Healey, Hartford, and, on the brief, Edward F. Rosenthal, Hartford, for appellant (named ...town of Portland, or in the alternative, the state highway commissioner, for ... Scoville v. West Hartford, 131 Conn. 239, 243, 38 A.2d 681; Frechette v. New Haven, ......
-
Sanzone v. Board of Police Com'rs of City of Bridgeport
...... green to both vehicles, one traveling north, the other traveling west. [219 Conn. 182] The plaintiffs alleged that this malfunction was caused ...Town Plan & Zoning [219 Conn. 187] Commission, 144 Conn. 677, 682, 136 A.2d 785 ... " 'separate with more distinctness than commas.' " West Hartford v. Thomas D. Faulkner Co., 126 Conn. 206, 210-11, 10 A.2d 592 (1940), ... Lukas v. New Haven, 184 Conn. 205, 439 A.2d 949 (1981); Scoville v. West Hartford, 131 Conn. 239, 38 A.2d 681 (1944); ......
-
Pearson v. Boise City
......City of Muscatine, 227 Ia. 1381, 291 N.W. 446; Kelleher v. City of West St. Paul, 193 Minn. 487, 258 N.W. 834; Casper v. City of Chicago, 320 ...Town of Chicopee, 1888, 147 Mass. 440, 18 N.E. 231, wherein a walk was held ...229; Andrews v. City of Bristol, 120 Conn. 499, 181 A. 624; Scoville v. Town of West Hartford, 131 Conn. 239, 38 A.2d 681; Kelleher v. City of ......
-
Ormsby v. Frankel
......134, 138, 42 A.2d 792 (1945); Scoville v. West Hartford, 131 Conn. 239, 242, 38 A.2d 681 (1944). In other ......