Chanosky v. City Bldg. Supply Co.

• Decision Date: 01 June 1965
• Citation: 152 Conn. 642,211 A.2d 141
• Parties: Benjamin E. CHANOSKY. Jr. v. The CITY BUILDING SUPPLY COMPANY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Page 141

211 A.2d 141

152 Conn. 642

Benjamin E. CHANOSKY. Jr. v. The CITY BUILDING SUPPLY COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 1, 1965.

Ralph C. Dixon, Hartford, with whom was Philip S. Walker, Harford, for appellant (defendant).

Paul J. McQuillan, New Britain, with whom were Frank E. Dully, Hartford, and, on the brief, Roman J. Lexton, New Britain, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, SHANNON and HOUSE, JJ.

HOUSE, Acting Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered for the plaintiff following the court's denial of the defendant's motions to set aside the verdict and for judgment not-withstanding the verdict. The defendant pursues as error on this appeal only the court's denial of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asserting that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict for the plaintiff. If the court correctly refused to set aside the verdict as against the evidence, it ncessarily properly denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Kerrigan v. Detroit Steel Corporation, 146 Conn. 658, 662, 154 A.2d 517; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 208; see Fisher v. Jackson, 142 Conn. 734, 738, 118 A.2d 316.

We examine the trial court's ruling on the basis of the evidence printed in the appendices to the briefs. Pierce v. Albanese, 144 Conn. 241, 256, 129 A.2d 606; Palmieri v. Macero, 146 Conn. 705, 707, 155 A.2d 750; see Practice Book § 641. The verdict of the jury must stand if they could reasonably have reached their conclusion. Markee v. Turner, 140 Conn. 701, 705, 103 A.2d 533. 'The correctness of the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be tested by the evidence most favorable to the [plaintiff]. Feir v. Town and City of Hartford, 141 Conn. 459, 463, 106 A.2d 723.' Pierce v. Albanese, supra, 144 Conn. 257, 129 A.2d 615. The concurrence of the judgments of the judge and the jury, who saw the witnesses and heard the testimony, is a powerful argument for sustaining the action of the trial court. Giambartolomei v. Rocky DeCarlo & Sons, Inc., 143 Conn. 468, 474, 123 A.2d 760.

The plaintiff was an electrician's helper employed by a subcontractor on a houseconstruction job. Before noon on June 5, 1961, the defendant's employees delivered to the job site thirty-six bundles of sheetrock, each measuring four feet by twelve feet and each weighing about 200 pounds. The defendant's employees stacked all of the bundles of sheetrock in the kitchen of the partially constructed house, stacking twenty-seven bundles against the outside wall and nine bundles against the opposite inside wall. Shortly after 6:00 p. m. the same day, while the plaintiff, in the course of his work, was standing in the space between the two stacks of sheetrock, the nine bundles which had been placed against the inside wall toppled over onto him causing him serious injuries. Included among the alleged negligent acts of the defendant's employees were the placement of the bundles of sheetrock against the inner wall at such a straight angle that they knew or should have known that small...