73 A.2d 306 (Vt. 1950), 2, Rosalie Trudo B/N/F v. Eugene M. Lazarus Et Als
|Citation:||73 A.2d 306, 116 Vt. 221|
|Party Name:||ROSALIE TRUDO b/n/f v. EUGENE M. LAZARUS ET ALS|
|Attorney:||Paul R. Teetor for the plaintiff. Louis Lisman for the defendants.|
|Judge Panel:||Present: SHERBURNE, C. J., JEFFORDS, CLEARY, ADAMS and BLACKMER, JJ.|
|Case Date:||May 02, 1950|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Vermont|
ACTION OF TORT. Trial by jury, Addison County Court, June Term, 1949, Black, J., presiding. Verdict was directed for the defendants and the plaintiff excepted.
[116 Vt. 222] This is an action for personal injuries received on February 15, 1949. Viewed most favorably to the plaintiff the evidence reasonably tended to show the following facts: The plaintiff was 9 years old. For several years the defendants had owned a piece of land in the village of Middlebury located directly behind the house in which the plaintiff lived, upon which were the remains of a laundry building which had partially burned in 1942. Some of the walls remained standing, although the windows had been broken out, and the roof was falling in. The east wall was right up to the line of a house lot owned by one Ferland. Originally the window sills in this wall were about two feet above Ferland's land, but in 1947 he graded his backyard right up to the east wall of the laundry and filled it up to about three inches below the window sills. Children were accustomed to play in and about this building, but the plaintiff and her sisters aged 11 and 6 had been warned by their parents not to do so, and did not go into the building but played around it. On the day in question the plaintiff and her sisters were playing "cowboys and crooks", a kind of hide and seek. While the plaintiff was standing on Ferland's land about two feet in front of one of the broken out windows her younger sister came running and grabbed her in such a way that she fell in through the broken out window opening and down upon some broken glass on the floor inside the building, and received the injuries for which recovery is sought. The defendants never did anything to guard against the possibility of children getting hurt there. There was no evidence that the defendants actually knew that children had played about this building, [116 Vt. 223] and it is doubtful if it can be inferred that they ought to have known that they had, but for the purposes of this...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP