O'Neil v. City of New Haven

Supreme Court of Connecticut

O'Neil v. City of New Haven

67 A. 487, 80 Conn. 154, 1907 Conn. LEXIS 24

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJuly 30, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 67 A. 487 (O'Neil v. City of New Haven) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Neil v. City of New Haven, 67 A. 487, 80 Conn. 154, 1907 Conn. LEXIS 24 (Colo. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Prentice, J.

The delict charged against the defendant as the basis of recovery upon the one count pursued, was ' its failure to perform the duty which it owed to him as a traveler upon one of its highways. Bartram v. Sharon, 71 Conn. 686, 694, 43 Atl. 143; Knapp & Cowles Mfg. Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 76 Conn. 311, 316, 56 Atl. 512. At the time of the receipt of his injury he was not such a traveler. He had voluntarily departed from the traveled way, and turned aside from his journey for a purpose in no way connected with his passage over the highway. The fact that he had but shortly before been using the street for travel, and intended to soon resume his passage over it, made him no more a traveler thereon than he would have been had his digression for an independent *157 purpose been of longer duration and intended to be longer continued. This fact was conclusive against his right to recover substantial damages.

It is urged that the defendant may incur a common-law liability arising from some wrongful act, and that facts justifying a judgment for this cause appear in the evidence. Such a cause of action, however, was neither set up nor admitted by the default. Recovery, therefore, could not be had upon it. Whiting v. Koepke, 71 Conn. 77, 40 Atl. 1053.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Prentice, J.

The delict charged against the defendant as the basis of recovery upon the one count pursued, was ' its failure to perform the duty which it owed to him as a traveler upon one of its highways. Bartram v. Sharon, 71 Conn. 686, 694, 43 Atl. 143; Knapp & Cowles Mfg. Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 76 Conn. 311, 316, 56 Atl. 512. At the time of the receipt of his injury he was not such a traveler. He had voluntarily departed from the traveled way, and turned aside from his journey for a purpose in no way connected with his passage over the highway. The fact that he had but shortly before been using the street for travel, and intended to soon resume his passage over it, made him no more a traveler thereon than he would have been had his digression for an independent *157 purpose been of longer duration and intended to be longer continued. This fact was conclusive against his right to recover substantial damages.

It is urged that the defendant may incur a common-law liability arising from some wrongful act, and that facts justifying a judgment for this cause appear in the evidence. Such a cause of action, however, was neither set up nor admitted by the default. Recovery, therefore, could not be had upon it. Whiting v. Koepke, 71 Conn. 77, 40 Atl. 1053.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A. 487, 80 Conn. 154, 1907 Conn. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneil-v-city-of-new-haven-conn-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack