Beecher v. Derby Bridge & Ferry Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action, brought upon the statute law of this state, entitled “ An Act concerning Highways and Bridges.” Rev. Stat., tit. 24, ch. 1, § 6. The material part of the statute upon which this action is founded, is the sixth section,, and is as follows: “ If any horse, or other beast, or cart, carriage, or other property, shall receive injury or damage by means of any defective bridge, the town, person, or persons, or corporation, which ought to keep such road or bridge…
Read the full summary
This was an action, brought upon the statute law of this state, entitled “ An Act concerning Highways and Bridges.” Rev. Stat., tit. 24, ch. 1, § 6. The material part of the statute upon which this action is founded, is the sixth section,, and is as follows: “ If any horse, or other beast, or cart, carriage, or other property, shall receive injury or damage by means of any defective bridge, the town, person, or persons, or corporation, which ought to keep such road or bridge in repair, shall pay to the owner of such beast or property, just damages.” The plaintiff, in his declaration, alleged…
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
We think the verdict in this case so manifestly against the weight of evidence, that a new trial must be granted, on that ground. The injury, complained of, appears to have been caused by reason of the displacement of one of the planks of the defendants’ bridge, and, if there had been no evidence of diligence, on their part, to keep the bridge in repair, this might have justified a verdict against them, under the statute. But the plaintiff’s counsel admit, that to justify the verdict, the defect must have been one that reasonable care and diligence, on the defendants’ part, would have guarded…
2Cited by2 opinions
- St. Peter's Church v. BeachSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
- Howell v. ScogginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874