Young v. Roodner
| Citation | 192 A. 710,123 Conn. 68 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1937 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. ROODNER. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Patrick B O'Sullivan, Judge.
Action by Rena Young against Samuel Roodner to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
Error and new trial ordered.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY and BROWN, JJ.
Jeremiah D. Shea, John Clark FitzGerald, David E FitzGerald, and David E. FitzGerald, Jr., all of New Haven for appellant.
Leo Nevas, of Westport, and Bernard A. Nevas, of South Norwalk, for appellee.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover for injuries suffered from a fall down a stairway in the defendant's building, leading from a store to the cellar below, while the plaintiff was lessee of these premises. The fall was caused by a shock from a defective electric light switch which the defendant had failed to repair, as agreed prior to the commencement of the plaintiff's tenancy. In so far as the appeal from the refusal to set aside the verdict is concerned, the jury could reasonably have found the following facts: The defendant owned the building in Norwalk of which this store and basement known as number 59 North Main street was a part. Near the rear of the store, which was on the ground floor, a stairway with eleven steps led to a dark cellar below, where the furnace operated by the plaintiff to heat the store was situated. The electric light in the cellar was controlled by a switch located under the store floor to the right of one descending the stairs. It was attached on the bottom of a floor joist seven inches back from the edge of the floor beam at the stairway opening. Six inches below this beam and running parallel with it, but an inch nearer the stairway, was a one and three-quarters inch water pipe.
The switch was a rotary snap switch with a circular porcelain base about two inches in diameter, surmounted by a metal cap or cover, on the middle of the top of which was a round turn-button for use in operating the switch. This cover was insulated from the metal operating parts enclosed thereunder, by a fiber lining or shell fitted inside it, and the turn-button was made of substance which was a nonconductor of electricity. The axis or pivot on which the movable metal center part of the switch turned and to which it was so annexed that it could not come off, was securely fastened through the porcelain base. The stem of this movable member was threaded, and the turn-button screwed down onto it. As threaded a total of four or five full turns clockwise was required to seat the button firmly on the stem, which then served to hold the cover in place against the porcelain base. To operate the switch, a further turn clockwise was necessary which would rotate the center member. This was in the nature of a crossbar so arranged that when the switch was on, its ends contacted two metal parts set opposite each other near the outer rim of the base and connected respectively with the two wires leading to the switch; and when the switch was off, these ends were out of contact in a position between these fixed contact points. The switch was so designed, that either when turned on, or by a further clockwise movement, turned off, a spring snapped the center member into its new position, avoiding the arcing of current likely to be incident to a slower motion. The only manner in which the switch cover and fiber lining could be removed, was by first taking off the turn-button. This involved turning it counter clockwise until it was unscrewed from the stem.
The defendant leased the store and basement to the plaintiff for the term of three months from December 1, 1934, and she took possession shortly before that date. A few days earlier when the plaintiff and her son-in-law, Hunt, had gone with the defendant to look at the premises, incidental to leasing them, Hunt noticed that the switch did not click when he turned the button, but that the button could be turned easily and apparently did not make proper contact. At that time and until the plaintiff's accident, the switch was defective in that the button would revolve easily in either direction, and the spring was weak so that it did not click when turned and did not make a proper snap contact, so that at times the light would not stay lit, necessitating further turning of the button until the contact essential to the lighting of the light was accomplished, and the entire mechanism of the switch was loose and lacking in stability. Hunt mentioned to the defendant that the switch was defective and as a part of the consideration for the plaintiff's taking the lease he agreed to fix it. Although subsequently requested several times to attend to it, he failed to do so.
On February 11, 1935, in going to the cellar, the plaintiff, as she stood on the stairs, grasped the water pipe with her right hand and reached for the switch with her left. The turn-button was missing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Schmelzer
...(1966); Sibley v. Nason, supra; In re Buda, supra; Saper v. Delgado, 146 F.2d 714 (C.A. 2, 1945) (under New York law); Young v. Roodner, 123 Conn. 68, 192 A. 710 (1937); Annot. 60 A.L.R.2d 1217, §§ 3, 4 (1959). For contra authority see other cases cited at n. 8, supra. 11 Nor do we think th......
-
Adam v. Connecticut Medical Examining Bd.
...forms, whether they are described as wanton, gross, heedless or reckless, are excluded from the statute by implication. Young v. Roodner, 123 Conn. 68, 73, 192 A. 710; Davis v. Davis, 119 Conn. 194, 200, 175 A. 574. The board was as unwarranted in finding the plaintiff guilty of wanton negl......
-
Scibek v. O'connell.
...to make the promised repairs, he would have discovered the defect. This was sufficient to charge him with notice. In Young v. Roodner, 123 Conn. 68, 192 A. 710, relied on by the defendant, there was a similar agreement to make a specific repair, but the defect which caused the injury was no......