Young v. Talcott
| Decision Date | 26 April 1932 |
| Citation | 114 Conn. 675,159 A. 881 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | YOUNG v. TALCOTT. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Peasley, Judge.
Action by Emma C. Young against J. Frederick Talcott to recover damages for personal injuries. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, plaintiff recovered verdict and judgment, and defendant appeals.
John H. Kirkham and Mortimer H. Camp, both of New Britain (Margaret P. Camp, of New Britain, on the brief), for appellant.
John L. Collins, of Hartford (Alexander W. Creedon, of Hartford on the brief), for appellee.
The complaint in this case alleges that the defendant owned a building located at the corner of New Britain avenue and Quaker Lane South in West Hartford; that while it was rented by him to a tenant he had reserved the care, custody, and control of the property in so far as the same was not in the immediate possession and control of the tenant, and had in particular reserved the care and control and maintenance of the roof of the building; that between a portion of it and a sidewalk on Quaker Lane South was an earthen embankment; that the defendant had negligently permitted quantities of snow ice, and water to collect on the roof of this portion of the building, for the drainage of which he had negligently failed to provide a gutter or other outlet to carry the water away from the sidewalk, but on the other hand had permitted it to fall in large quantities from the roof upon the embankment, whence it trickled to the sidewalk; that at a certain point the sidewalk had become depressed, allowing the water coming thus upon it to collect and freeze in the depression, rendering the walk unsafe for public travel; and that the plaintiff, passing over it in the exercise of due care, slipped and fell upon the ice, receiving thereby the injuries for which she sought to recover. The complaint then specifically alleged that the condition of the sidewalk at the point where the plaintiff fell was caused by the negligence of the defendant in permitting snow, ice, and water to fall upon the embankment and thence to trickle upon the sidewalk, in failing to provide a gutter or other artificial drainage to carry off the snow, ice, and water accumulating upon the roof of the building, and in failing to place sand or other material upon the walk to prevent pedestrians slipping upon it or provide barriers about it to warn them of danger.
The defendant demurred to the complaint upon four grounds: First that it did not appear that the ice upon which the plaintiff fell was formed otherwise than from water trickling down an embankment upon the defendant's premises in a natural manner and without artificial accumulation by him; second, that it did not appear that the defendant caused the sidewalk to become broken or depressed; third, that it did appear that the defendant had leased the premises to a tenant who was in possession of them at the time of the plaintiff's injury; and, fourth, that the ice was situated within the limits of a public highway which it did not appear to be the duty of the defendant to build, maintain, or repair. The demurrer was overruled, and the ruling upon it is one of the errors assigned.
The second and fourth grounds of demurrer may be briefly disposed of. The action was not based upon a defect in the sidewalk but upon the claimed negligence of the defendant in so using his property abutting upon the walk as to render it dangerous to those lawfully passing over it. Kane v. New Ideal Realty Co., 104 Conn. 508, 515, 133 A. 686; Calway v. Schaal & Son, Inc., 113 Conn. 586, 590, 155 A. 813. The third ground of demurrer is not well taken. An owner of a building may be liable for its negligent construction whereby water drips upon a sidewalk and freezes there so as to make it unsafe for pedestrians even though he has leased the building to another, if the circumstances of the leasing be such that the tenant has not the right to make such changes in it as would remedy the defect. Calway v. Schaal & Son, Inc., supra, page 592 of 113 Conn., 155 A. 813. Moreover, it is expressly alleged that the defendant had reserved the care, control, and maintenance of the roof of the building. If this were proven, he might be liable for negligence in not taking reasonable steps to prevent the dripping of water from melting ice and snow upon the roof. Thelin v. Downs, 109 Conn. 662, 667, 145 A. 50.
The first ground of demurrer was, however, sound. The situation presented in the complaint differs materially from that in either the Kane or Calway Cases. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Town of Greenwich, 17555.
...and procedural history. Greenwich Acquisition submitted a request to instruct the jury on the law as stated in Young v. Talcott, 114 Conn. 675, 678-79, 159 A. 881 (1932), and Langlois v. Murphy, 15 Conn.Supp. 137, 138 (1947). These cases state that a landowner whose property is next to a pu......
-
Eiselein v. K-Mart, Inc.
...Co., 510 F.2d 429 (2d Cir.1975) (Vermont); Key v. Lerner Shops of Colorado, Inc., 472 P.2d 752 (Colo.App.1970); Young v. Talcott, 114 Conn. 675, 159 A. 881 (1932); Wells v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea, 171 Ill.App.3d 1012, 121 Ill.Dec. 820, 525 N.E.2d 1127 (1 We wish to emphasize that the ......
-
Hayes v. New Britain Gas Light Co.
... ... bound to exercise due care in his use of it. Thelin v ... Downs, 109 Conn. 662, 667, 145 A. 50; Young v ... Talcott, 114 Conn. 675, 678, 159 A. 881; Skelly v ... Pleasure Beach Park Corporation, 115 Conn. 92, 97, 160 ... A. 309; Ziulkowski v ... ...
-
Lewis v. I. M. Shapiro Co. Inc.
...the maintenance of structures upon abutting property controlled by him, Thelin v. Downs, 109 Conn. 662, 667, 145 A. 50; Young v. Talcott, 114 Conn. 675, 678, 159 A. 881; Kane v. New Idea Realty Co., 104 Conn. 508, 515, 133 A. 686; and where the plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the......