Sheehan v. Sette

• Decision Date: 13 July 1943
• Citation: 130 Conn. 295,33 A.2d 327
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: SHEEHAN v. SETTE et al.

130 Conn. 295

33 A.2d 327

SHEEHAN

v.SETTE et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 13, 1943.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Devlin, Judge.

Action by Mae Sheehan against Charles Sette and others for personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of defendant in permitting steps, leading to defendants' apartment house, to remain in an icy condition.Verdict and judgment was for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

No error.

Morris Tyler, of New Haven, for appellants.

Jeremiah D. Shea, of New Haven (David E. FitzGerald, Jr., of New Haven, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.

ELLS, Judge.

The defendants owned a three-family house situated on a high embankment and reached by walking up nine cement steps from the public sidewalk to a platform from which five or six wooden steps lead to the front entrance.The plaintiff, a tenant in one of the apartments, started up the steps at about 11:30 o'clock on the morning of February 8, 1941, slipped on the second or third concrete step, which was covered with a sheet of ice, fell and was injured.A verdict was rendered for her, the court refused to set it aside and the defendants appealed, claiming only that the defect had not existed long enough to give them constructive notice of its existence and a reasonable opportunity thereafter to remedy the defect, and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

There was direct evidence from which the jury could reasonably have concluded that the steps had been slippery for about four and three-fourths hours.A warm and very heavy rain ceased at midnight, the temperature began to fall, and when the plaintiff left the house at about 6:45 in the morning the steps were wet and slushy and it was beginning to freeze.The temperature continued to drop; before 9 o'clock the streets and sidewalks were beginning to be slippery and continued thereafter to get more slippery.When the plaintiff returned to the house at about 11:30, there was ice on the sidewalk in front of it, the step in question was covered with a sheet of glare ice and there was ice also on the other steps.The defendants lived only two or three blocks away.

In such a situation, the question as to the length of time a defect must exist in order that the owner may be charged with notice or knowledge thereof depends very largely upon the nature of the defect and the facts of the particular case.The familiar rule is that the primary duty of the landlord as to such premises is to use reasonable care to see that they are kept reasonably safe.Liability for a breach of that duty will arise only if it appears that he either...