Dombroski v. Abrams
| Decision Date | 28 March 1933 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DOMBROSKI v. ABRAMS. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Patrick B O'Sullivan, Judge.
Action by Mary Anna Dombroski against Max N. Abrams for damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff as tenant, by reason of a defective veranda railing. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
No error.
C Hadlai Hull, of New London, for appellant.
Arthur T. Keefe, of New London, and Leon J. Beisheim, of Waterford for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.
The plaintiff brought her action to recover damages for injuries received by reason of a fall due, as she claims, to a defective railing of a rear veranda on the second story of a tenement house owned by the defendant. The jury rendered a verdict in her favor, and the defendant has appealed. The plaintiff occupied a tenement on the second floor of the building and was upon the veranda for the purpose of using a clothesline attached to one of its posts. She was reaching for the line when she came in contact with the railing and it gave way, causing her to fall to the ground. The defendant filed a motion for a more specific statement addressed to the complaint, but the matters which it sought to have stated were of an evidential nature, and we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Prince v. Takash, 75 Conn. 616, 619, 54 A. 1003; Ferguson v. Cripps, 87 Conn. 241, 246, 87 A. 792; Huber v. H. R. Douglas, Inc., 94 Conn. 167, 183, 108 A. 727. The defendant also demurred to the complaint upon four grounds. The demurrer was sustained upon one ground and the complaint amended to cure the defect. It was overruled on the other grounds. Two of these were to the effect that it did not appear in the complaint that the plaintiff's injuries were due to the negligence of the defendant or were proximately caused by the alleged defective condition of the railing, but these grounds were clearly not sound. The remaining ground was that it did not appear that the plaintiff at the time she fell was using the veranda for any purpose for which it was maintained. Whatever we might hold had the matter stopped with the demurrer, it was proven on the trial without dispute that the plaintiff was upon the veranda at the time of her fall for the entirely proper purpose of using the clothesline: and we are entitled to regard proof of this fact as sufficient to obviate any possible error in the ruling on the demurrer. Scott v. Scott, 83 Conn. 634, 636, 78 A. 314, 21 Ann.Cas. 965; Hartford AEtna National Bank v. Anderson, 92 Conn. 643, 645, 103 A, 845.
The principal contention of the defendant upon this appeal is that there was a fatal variance between the allegations of the complaint and the facts proved. In the complaint as amended the plaintiff alleged that she " stepped from her tenement out upon the landing place of the veranda, fell against the railing, which gave way,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Hamilton Gardens, Inc.
... ... George B. Wuestefeld Co., 132 Conn. 653, 655, 46 A.2d 841; Klahr v. Kostopoulos, supra, 138 Conn. 653, 88 A.2d 332, and Dombroski v. Abrams, 116 Conn. 454, 456, ... 165 A. 457, 1 which would warrant the jury in finding that the defendant had information or was otherwise put ... ...
-
Schaller v. Roadside Inn, Inc.
...the proof of a factual situation is different from that alleged. Lionetti v. Coppola, 115 Conn. 499, 503, 161 A. 797; Dombroski v. Abrams, 116 Conn. 454, 456, 165 A. 457. In the present case, the basic cause of action against Roadside was for damages due to a breach of duty owed by the owne......
-
State v. Murphy
... ... to the accused from that denial.' (page 75.) The court ... did not err in denying the motion in the exercise of its ... discretion. Dombroski v. Abrams, 116 Conn. 454, 455, ... 165 A. 457; Prince v. Takash, 75 Conn. 616, 619, 54 ... The ... second error assigned is the court's ... ...
-
State v. Miller
... ... & Briefs 441; State v. Murphy, 124 Conn. 554, 560, 1 A.2d 274; State v. Pallotti, 119 Conn. 70, 72 174 A. 74, A-60 Rec. & Briefs 7; Dombroski v. Abrams, 116 Conn. 454, 455, 165 A. 457; notes, 5 A.L.R.2d 444, 10 A.L.R. 982. The short-form of information need not allege the means by which ... ...