New Britain herald., 1930-09-30
for Congress going to Washington.
COMMUNICATED
SIDEWALK LIABILITY
Judge KirkhAm Further Explains Views On Proposed Law
 Chance

You state that 1t is the property owners themselves who favor the city being liable. This is quite cor rect, as I pointed out in my con- munication to the mayor and the the property owners favor the city's being liable is because they fear that if the Connecticut statute making cities and towns liable for accidents occasioned by ice and snow on side walks is repealed, that thereupon they will automatically become liable themselves. This fear is due to ig- norance of the law.
 The supreme court of errors of Connecticut in the case of Hartford vs. Talcott, 4S Conn. 532, January term, 1881, decided this matter and that decision has never been over ruled or modified and such is the law to the best of my belief in every state In the Union.
 In that case the charter of Hart ford authorized the common council to pass an ordinance for the keep ing of the streets open and safe. The council passed an ordinance re- quiring every owner or occupant of a building or lot bordering upon a street with a paved or graded side- walk to remove from the walk all snow and ice within certain time after it had fallen or formed and imposing a penalty of two dollars for every 12 hours of neglect of the duty after notice from a policeman. The defendant, who owned premises fronting upon a public street and sidewalk neglected beyond the time limited to remove snow and ice that had accumulated upon the walk and rendered 1t unsafe and person passing by upon 1t fell and was in iured, and afterwards recovered damages therefor from the city. In a suit brought by the city to recover the amount from defendants, 1t was held that they were not liable. The court states:
 There not being upon the indi vidual any liability at common law for injuries resulting from obstruc- tions In the way wholly the effects of natural causes, such liability is not brought into existence by force of declarations in the ordinance that the Instructions are nuisances or that 1t is his duty to remove them: for, as the liability is the creation of the ordinance. it can be no greater than that specifically named therein, in, haf "a council measured it by fine with cost of removal, the city has thereby barred itself from enforcing an un- na1ned and unlimited penalty be- yond."
 I might add that the city would not be liable were it not for the special statute which I recommend ed be amended as there Is no com mon law liability for the city for in- juries resulting from Instructions in the way wholly the effect of natural causea
 The legislature has repealed this statute in so far as Waterbury is concerned. as I pointed out in my report. I am informed that the law has worked out in Waterbury to the great satisfaction of the tax payers of the city and if the rest of the state had the same law as Waterbury has, there is no question in my mind but what the tax payers of the en- tire state would be pleased with the same rights which they are entitled to as much as tax payers of Water bury.
 I would not have the property owners liable and would have no one liable for the weather.
 Were it possible by reasonable effort on the part of the city to pre- vent accidents on sidewalks on &C., count of their being slippery, my opinion would be different
 As it is, in my opinion the law is unfair. It is impossible for the city of New Britain to prevent accidents from ice and snow on three hundred miles of sidewalks, or even on one mile.
 The whole matter boils down to this: Is a law, which is intrinsical- ly unjust and unfair (except in the city of Waterbury, ct al.,) worth while which as legally construed penalizes the tax payers of the city in five cases out of one hundred, but in practice results in the filing of one hundred claims, where there Is a possibility that jury or court might decide twenty-five cases in favor of the claimants and a proba- tility that they would decide in favor of the city in ninety-fve cases. pro- rided the city should put up 8 first class legal battle in defense of its rights?
 New Britain has not fared i'll in any contested cases in recent years, lat has compromised many cases of doubtful liability through the claims committee or the corporation coun- sel and has given many claimants leave to withdraw, all to the i'm mense dissatisfa ction of claimants, their lawyers. their doctors, their hospitals and their nurses, as well, as I suspect, to the dissatisfaction of tax payers.
 Please bear in mind that I advo- cate that the city continue to be held table as by law provided, for all other defects in highways, but that TO one be held liable in damages tor snow or ice, and that the pres ent city ordinance should remain in force where the penalty to adjoin- ing proprietors is limited to a fine in police court and the expense of removal of the ice and snow.
 Yours truly,
 J. H. KIRKHAM,
 Corporation Counsel.