Colligan v. Reilly
| Decision Date | 08 May 1942 |
| Citation | 26 A.2d 231,129 Conn. 26 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | COLLIGAN v. REILLY. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; King, Judge.
Action by Areta Colligan against Thomas F. Reilly to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, brought to the Superior Court and tried to the court. Judgment for the defendant and appeal by the plaintiff.
No error.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.
Louis Feinmark and Abraham Zweigbaum, both of New Haven, for appellant.
Thomas R. Robinson and David M. Reilly, both of New Haven, for appellee,
The essential facts in this case appearing in the finding are these: The defendant owned a building on the east side of Main Street in East Haven, with two stores on the first story facing the street, and on the second and third floors two duplex tenements. The south tenement was occupied by the plaintiff's family in which there were six children, five of them ranging in age from sixteen to nine months, including the plaintiff who was four years and four months of age. The northerly tenement was occupied by an Averill family in which there were four children ranging in age from fourteen to eight. In the rear of the property, to the east and southeast, there was a yard. About sixty feet southeast of the dwelling house, in the east end of the yard, was a rubbish pile with ashes and tin cans where the two families, as well as the defendant and the defendant's employees, at various times had burned papers and other combustible materials. The defendant in a general way knew of this use and had acquiesced in it. About twenty-six feet south of the rubbish pile there was a wooden garage. The defendant in a general way knew the ages of the children in the two families and that they played in the yard in the rear of the tenements. About 4 o'clock in the afternoon of March 21, 1940, the plaintiff and her seven year old brother were planting seeds near the garage in the back yard. At about that time, an eleven year old son of the Averill tenant was seen coming down the back stairs with papers in his hands. Although this boy was not seen outside the building or in the yard at any time that day, the trial court found that he took the paper bags to the rubbish pile and set them on fire. About fifteen minutes later the plaintiff was heard screaming and was seen at a point about midway between the garage and the house with the right leg of her overalls or ski pants burning back of the knee. At that time a fire was observed on the rubbish pile and a burning piece of paper on the ground between the rubbish pile and the garage near which the plaintiff had been playing. The plaintiff was a child of average intelligence for her age. During the ten or fifteen minutes between the time the Averill boy was seen on the back stairs and the screams of the plaintiff it is not known what she did, nor is it known what her brother, who was with her, was doing during that period, nor is it known how her overalls or ski pants became ignited. The defendant had taken no action in regard to the children playing in the yard or to safeguard them from burning papers on the rubbish pile.
The trial court concluded that it was impossible to reconstruct the situation from the evidence so as to be able to determine with reasonable probability how the plaintiff's ski pants caught fire, except that in some unknown way the fire or some paper or other burning substance from it, whether or not through the intervening act or omission of a third person, came in contract with the plaintiff or near enough to her to cause the leg of her ski pants to smolder. The court further found that the plaintiff had failed to establish her due care as alleged in the complaint, or that any negligence of the defendant, if there was such negligence, was the proximate cause of her injuries.
Counsel for the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snell v. Norwalk Yellow Cab, Inc.
...factor in producing the plaintiff's injuries was essential to a finding [of superseding cause]" [emphasis added] ); Colligan v. Reilly , 129 Conn. 26, 30, 26 A.2d 231 (1942) (same). Accordingly, we consistently have held that, "[i]f a defendant's negligence was a substantial factor ... in p......
-
Bush v. New Jersey & New York Transit Co.
...in the circumstances of the case. Bruno v. Belmonte, 252 Minn. 497, 90 N.W.2d 899 (Sup.Ct.1958) (five years); Colligan v. Reilly, 129 Conn. 26, 26 A.2d 231 (Sup.Ct.Err.1942) (four years, four months); Rutkowski v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 100 Conn. 49, 52, 123 A. 25 (Sup.Ct.Err.1923) ......
-
Wagner v. Clark Equipment Co., Inc.
...Corey v. Phillips, [supra, at 254, 10 A.2d 370]; Roden v. Connecticut Co., 113 Conn. 408, 413, 155 A. 721 [1931]." Colligan v. Reilly, 129 Conn. 26, 30, 26 A.2d 231 (1942). The issue of whether two or more forces may combine to create a superseding cause is one of first impression for this ......
-
Mahon v. Heim
...will vary according to his age, judgment and experience,' citing Rappa v. Connecticut Co., 96 Conn. 285, 286, 114 A. 81 Colligan v. Reilly, 129 Conn. 26, 29, 26 A.2d 231, and Magaraci v. Santa Marie, 130 Conn. 323, 330, 33 A.2d 424; see also Santor v. Balnis, 151 Conn. 434, 436, 199 A.2d 2;......