Opinion
The plaintiff recovered a verdict for injuries sustained as a result of a fall on an allegedly defective highway. The defendant moved to set the verdict aside. The trial court should have granted the motion since the plaintiff had failed to prove either that the defendant had actual knowledge of the claimed defect or that it was of such a duration that reasonable care in inspection would have disclosed it and that thereafter reasonable opportunity would have been afforded to remedy it.
Argued March 11, 1969
Decided April 1, 1969
Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by a defective highway, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Tolland County and tried to the jury before Williams, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendant. Error; further proceedings.
Robert L. Trowbridge, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Goodman, for the appellant (defendant).
William J. Shea, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was John D. LaBelle, for the appellee (plaintiff).
The plaintiff recovered a verdict for injuries sustained as a result of a fall on an allegedly defective highway. The defendant has appealed from the judgment, assigning error in the denial of his motion to set aside the verdict, in the charge, and in a ruling on evidence.
The defect was described as a break in the edge of the asphalt pavement of a road which was under the jurisdiction and control of the defendant. The break was about three and one-half feet long, one and one-half feet wide, and two and one-half inches deep. There was no claim or proof that the defendant had actual knowledge of the break and no proof as to the length of time the break had existed. To recover under General Statutes 13a-144, it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove either that the defendant had actual notice of the defect or that the defect had existed for such a length of time that it would have been known in the exercise of reasonable care and a reasonable opportunity would have been afforded in which to remedy it. Shirlock v. MacDonald, 121 Conn. 611, 613, 186 A. 562; Falkowski v. MacDonald, 116 Conn. 241, 243, 164 A. 650. Since the plaintiff failed to meet this essential element in her proof, the verdict cannot be supported.
It is unnecessary to discuss the other assignments of error.