O'Brien v. Cordova
Decision Date | 20 July 1976 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Robert P. O'BRIEN et al. v. Julio CORDOVA. |
William F. Gallagher, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was John R. McGrail, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
Robert C. Flanagan, New Haven, with whom was John C. Flanagan, New Haven, for appellees (plaintiffs).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.
The defendant, Julio Cordova, has appealed from a judgment rendered on a jury verdict for the plaintiffs, Robert P. O'Brien and Ann O'Brien, and their minor children, Dean and Robert, Jr., in their action to recover damages for their injuries. The plaintiffs' complaint states that Raymond Perez, while acting as Julio Cordova's agent and within the scope of his authority, negligently operated Cordova's motor vehicle at an unreasonable rate of speed, failed to keep his vehicle under proper control, failed to maintain a proper lookout, failed to give a signal of his approach, failed to stop at a stop sign, and followed the O'Brien vehicle too closely in violation of General Statutes § 14-240. Cordova's principal claim, the resolution of which is dispositive of this appeal, is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside the verdict and his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiffs failed to prove any of their allegations of negligence.
The complaint alleges that while stopped at a stop sign on a public highway, O'Brien's motor vehicle was struck in the rear by the motor vehicle operated by Perez. In considering whether there was sufficient evidence to support a verdict, the evidence as printed in the appendices to the briefs is consulted. Raia v. Topehius, 165 Conn. 231, 237, 332 A.2d 93; Lepri v. Branford, 152 Conn. 210, 211, 205 A.2d 486. 1
The defendant's brief has no appendix and the appendix to the plaintiffs' brief only reveals, in substance, the following: The impact of the collision caused Robert O'Brien to be thrown back and then forward on the wheel. After the accident, Robert O'Brien got out of his vehicle and the operator of the other vehicle showed him the defendant's motor vehicle registration. Sometime after the accident Cordova and Perez came to his home. Ann O'Brien stated: Cordova stated that when he heard about the accident he looked for Perez. When he talked to Perez, the latter stated: He also said that no one was hurt. Cordova then drove to O'Brien's residence and asked O'Brien to identify Perez.
To support a verdict in a negligence case, there must be sufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence to remove the issue from the field of surmise and conjecture. Chasse v. Albert, 147 Conn. 680, 683, 166 A.2d 148; Palmieri v. Macero, 146 Conn. 705, 708, 155 A.2d 750. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Paige v. St. Andrew's Roman Catholic Church Corp.
...causal connection that is based on more than conjecture and surmise. Vetre v. Keene, supra, 181 Conn. 140-41; cf. O'Brien v. Cordova, 171 Conn. 303, 306, 370 A.2d 933 (1976) (insufficient evidence to support jury's inferences; judgment directed for defendant); McCrorey v. Heilpern, 170 Conn......
-
Silano v. Bd. of Educ. of The City of Bridgeport
...happening of an untoward or even tragic incident. See Wu v. Fairfield, 204 Conn. 435, 440, 528 A.2d 364 (1987); O'Brien v. Cordova, 171 Conn. 303, 306, 370 A.2d 933 (1976). The plaintiffs contend that “the factual basis for the Plaintiffs' claims can only be learned from the testimony of Pa......
-
Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
...than not that the facts in issue are true." Rapuano v. Oder, 181 Conn. 515, 517, 436 A.2d 21 (1980), citing O'Brien v. Cordova, 171 Conn. 303, 305, 370 A.2d 933 (1976); LeBlanc v. Grillo, 129 Conn. 378, 382, 28 A.2d 127 (1942). The jury's findings of fact will not be disturbed "if it is rea......
-
Munn v. Hotchkiss Sch.
...v. Hankey, 117 Conn. 5, 10–11, 166 A. 400 (1933) ); Vetre v. Keene, 181 Conn. 136, 140–41, 434 A.2d 327 (1980) ; O'Brien v. Cordova, 171 Conn. 303, 305–06, 370 A.2d 933 (1976).Hotchkiss argues that the Connecticut Supreme Court's precedent requires that Munn proffer direct evidence that she......