The Waterbury Democrat., 1940-05-01

Refusal to set aside the directed verdict for the city, rendered by a superior court jury here recently in the ease of Robert James, adminls- trstor of the estate of his son Rob. ert, was correct, the supreme court of errors ruled today.
 The high court found that jury could not reasonably come to the conclusion that the steady yellow caution light on East Main street was a nuisance.
 Tried By Judge McEvOy
 Action to recover damages for the death of the seven-year. boy, ale legged to have been caused by a nuisance created and maintained by the city, and by the negligence of the driver of the car which struck young James, Bartley Hall, was tried here by Judge Frank P. Mc- Evoy. The jury returned verdict for the city and from this Judg. ment the father of the boy appealed.
 The. boy was killed crossing East Main street on the crosSwalk from north to south when he was struck by Bartley Halls car which was preceding westerly, on October 1, 1886.
 On these facts the plaintiff claim. ed that the city created and main- tained a nuisance in not painting the lines defining the crosswalk all the way across the street and in maintaining Q yellow steady light.
 No Basis for Nuisance
 The supreme court ruled that In the absence of any statutory re. quirement that lines designating a crosswalk must be painted and maintained for the full width of the street and of any evidence indicat- ing that their absence in the center of the street was a source of danger, there was no basis for Q finding of nuisance on this point. We are not obliged to ignore the obvious fact that paint wears off the surface of asphalt from weather conditions and traffic. In view of the heavy traffic conditions, the designation of the crosswalk was sufficient compli- ance with general statutes. The croSSWalk was a natural one in that It was an extension of the westerly sidewalk of Mill street, which fact was to that extent warning to motorists that pedestrians might cross at that point.
 No Theory Advanced
 No theory has been advanced by the plaintiff which would justify . Jury in finding tho steady yellow light to be a nuisance. During the disrepair of the traffic light sys- tenn at this point the city had but two alternatives open. It could kill tho light or install a steady one. It's choice In keeping the yellow light burning was the prudent one under the circumstances. No stat ute forbade this course of action. ThS plaintiff claimed 1t confused out of town drivers and that they sometimes waited for the light to change. This result could hardly be said to increase the hazard to pedes- trians and certainly could not have accelerated trafflc. A jury could not reasonably come to the conclu- sion that the steady yellow light was a nuisance. The refusal to set aside the directed verdict for the city was correct.
 Frequent Accidents
 During the trial the plaintiff of- fered the evidence Of several wit- neSses to the effect that there had been frequent minor accidents be- tween automobiles at these intersec- tionS, consisting principally of scraping of lenders, for the purpose of showing a dangerous condition. The testimony of two of these wit- nesses was heard In full, in the ab- sence of the jury. The court ruled that evidence of minor collisions between automobiles was irrelevant to reflect conditions confronting @ pedestrian and offered to hear any witness whose testimony would re- ,,rnds,ro tha eituat tinyo siirrn,indin