Legal Opinion
Goldstein v. City of Hartford
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 16, 1957PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam.
Not everyone who slips on an icy sidewalk, falls and sustains injuries is entitled to damages against the municipality. An essential to recovery is proof that the municipality committed a breach of the duty imposed upon it as to its sidewalks. Cum. Sup. 1955, § 1180d. That duty is to use reasonable care to make them reasonably safe. Petrelli v. New Haven, 116 Conn. 144, 149, 163 A. 759; Carl v. New Haven, 93 Conn. 622, 625, 107 A. 502. Whether that duty has been performed is ordinarily a question of fact. O’Neil v. East Windsor, 63 Conn. 150, 153, 27 A. 237. In the ease at bar, the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Carl v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
- Donovan v. Hartford Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1894
- O'Neil v. Town of East WindsorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- Petrelli v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
3Cited by8 opinions
- Jones Destruction, Inc. v. UpjohnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
- Covino v. PfefferSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- State v. CobuzziSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
- Burke v. Town of West HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
- Fritz v. MazurekSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.