DocketNumber: File No. 70110
Citation Numbers: 14 Conn. Super. Ct. 322, 14 Conn. Supp. 322
Judges: QUINLAN, J.
Filed Date: 8/20/1946
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
These claims, joined under our statute in one action, rest on nuisance caused by vibration, noise, smoke, dirt and dust.
A considerable part of the trial was devoted to the issue of vibration and its effect on the houses of the plaintiffs. Earnestly as this contention was urged by counsel for the plaintiffs, and sincerely, I believe, by the parties, I find myself unable to reject the testimony of the defendants' experts. Professor Leet's education and training along these lines, besides his practical experience, as well as the tests he made indicate that vibration cracks are of a crisscross nature and such were absent. Moreover the cumulative dropping of the defendants' hammers in a practical sense make no difference as to causation, whatever infinitesimal change might occur from a decimal standpoint. It is noticeable, too, that Mrs. Robidoux laid the stress on the noise rather than the vibration. Professor Leet says that out of forty possible causes for cracks those present in this case were of a shrinkage or settlement nature. The houses lie in low ground where the tide has been known to cover the street. These factors give strength to the testimony of Mr. Everett, a contractor, who says that the cracks were of a settlement nature. It is apparent that some man from Bridgeport was present when Mr. Everett made his examination, and that man did not testify. I cannot let that circumstance escape me. Moreover, the court was not requested to view these premises.
This was an industrial zone, and the defendants were engaged in war work. The defendants, however, were required to make a reasonable use of their premises. The Connecticut cases of Hurlbut v. McKone,
So, while I cannot ascribe the cracks to vibration and therefore cannot allow damages on that account, it appears that during overtime operation, which in fact covered limited periods, the enjoyment of the plaintiffs' premises was made uncomfortable and inconvenient. Indeed, the brief of the plaintiffs, while not exactly conceding, at least recognizes that in an industrial zone something more must be endured in the daytime than in overtime work.
I find that, to the limited extent that operations occurred either in the night season or on holidays or Sundays, the comfort of certain of the plaintiffs was violated. Consequently I find that a reasonable sum for this inconvenience is $50 to each ownership as of record; United States Smelting Co. v. Sisam,
191 F. 293; Baltimore Potomac R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist
Church,
I find no credible evidence to sustain the claim of damage from smoke, dust and dirt.
Judgment for the plaintiffs may enter in accordance herewith with costs.