Corriveau v. Associated Realty Corp.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1936 |
| Citation | 188 A. 436,122 Conn. 253 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CORRIVEAU et al. v. ASSOCIATED REALTY CORPORATION. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Patrick B O'Sullivan, Judge.
Action by Alcide Corriveau and another against the Associated Realty Corporation to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. From a judgment on a verdict for defendant after trial to a jury plaintiffs appeal.
No error.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN JJ.
One is conclusively presumed to know and appreciate danger which, under similar circumstances, would have been known or appreciated by an ordinarily prudent person.
Charles A. Harrison and William Dimenstein, both of New Haven, for appellant Corriveau.
John E. McNerney, of New Haven, for appellant E. & S. Trucking Co.
A. Robert Levett, Frank Kenna, and David M. Reilly, all of New Haven, for appellee.
On February 1st, 1935, at about 7:45 a.m., the plaintiff, a truckman, drove his truck into a driveway upon the premises of the defendant for the purpose of delivering merchandise to a tenant of the defendant upon the third floor of its building. Plaintiff walked from his truck to a freight elevator used in common by the tenants of building, and fell into the elevator pit. In front of the elevator shaft is an automatic safety gate of wooden pickets about 5 feet high, which is suspended over a pulley by a rope attached to a counterweight so that the gate comes down automatically by its own weight into the opening of the elevator shaft upon the driveway, when the elevator is not at that opening. When the elevator carriage is at the ground floor the gate is raised by hand. When the operator desires to move the elevator carriage he pulls a rope in the elevator shaft which makes an electric connection and causes the elevator to ascend. After it has ascended about 18 inches the gate automatically falls into position.
The plaintiff claimed to have proved that for a long time prior to the accident the safety gate had been defective in that it stuck and did not come down automatically of its own weight when the elevator was moved away from the ground floor, and that this condition was known, or in the exercise of due care should have been known, to the defendant; that when he came to the elevator entrance the elevator carriage was in the upper part of the building and the safety gate was raised, leaving the opening unguarded, that the driveway and space adjacent to the elevator shaft was in substantial darkness, and that, believing that the elevator carriage was there, he stepped into the open and unguarded shaft.
The defendant claimed to have proved that, on the morning of the accident, and for a long time prior thereto, the safety gate and elevator were in good working order, and that it was so reported to the defendant by mechanics of an elevator company who made monthly inspection of the same; that at the time of the accident there was sufficient natural light in the space surrounding the elevator shaft so that objects were readily discernible, and that there was an electric light bulb in the top of the inside of the elevator carriage which was lighted, being lighted at all times and having no switch by which it could be turned off, and the presence or absence of the elevator carriage at the ground floor could easily be determined by the presence or absence of this artificially lighted area; that the plaintiff has used this elevator at least three times a week over a period of four years, and was familiar with the operations of the safety gate. The defendant further claimed to have proved that, when the plaintiff approached the elevator entrance on the morning in question, the safety gate was down and the elevator carriage at an upper floor, that he lifted the gate and, while reaching in to pull the rope which would bring the elevator down, he carelessly lost his balance and fell into the elevator shaft.
The only errors assigned are those claimed in connection with the charge of the trial court. The appellant claims that the charge was inadequate in that it failed to review the evidence and point out to the jury the application of the principles of law to the facts claimed to have been proven. The extent to which a court shall comment on the evidence is largely a matter within its sound discretion. Morosini v Davis, 110 Conn. 358, 363, 148 A. 371. It depends largely upon the facts involved in the particular case and the manner in which it has been tried. It may be the duty of the court in some cases to call attention in the charge to evidence or inferences which seem to it to have been overlooked, or to caution the jury against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tough v. Ives
...the case, a discussion in the charge of the details of the evidence may defeat its proper purpose. Corrievau v. Associated Realty Corporation, 122 Conn. 253, 256, 188 A. 436; Heslin v. Malone, 116 Conn. 471, 478, 165 A. The plaintiff submitted requests to charge that cover seventeen pages o......
-
Logan v. Greenwich Hosp. Ass'n
...to serve as an adequate guide to the jury. Vita v. McLaughlin, 158 Conn. 75, 77, 255 A.2d 848 (1969); Corrievau v. Associated Realty Corporation, 122 Conn. 253, 256-57, 188 A. 436 (1936). In response to an exception, taken by counsel for the defendant Bogdan, that a portion of his request t......
-
State v. Lemoine
...parties adequately to guide the jury in the application of the principles of law to the facts involved." Corrievau v. Associated Realty Corp., 122 Conn. 253, 256-57, 188 A. 436 (1936); Crane v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co., 111 Conn. 313, 316, 149 A. (1930); Morosini v. Davis, 110 Conn. 3......
-
Bushy v. Forster
...issues in its charge, the court's charge was proper because the evidence was uncomplicated. 5 See also Corrievau v. Associated Realty Corp., 122 Conn. 253, 256-57, 188 A. 436 (1936); Crane v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co., 111 Conn. 313, 316, 149 A. 782 (1930); Morosini v. Davis, 110 Conn.......