Flint v. Conn. Hassam Paving Co.

• Decision Date: 28 May 1918
• Citation: 103 A. 840,92 Conn. 576
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: FLINT v. CONNECTICUT HASSAM PAVING CO.

103 A. 840

92 Conn. 576

FLINT

v. CONNECTICUT HASSAM PAVING CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 28, 1918.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Joel H. Reed, Judge.

Action by Lydia C. Flint against the Connecticut Hassam Paving Company. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant in failing to properly guard the highway in which it had placed obstructions to travel, while performing work in improving and repairing the highway in the city of New Haven. It was tried to the jury, and from a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendant has appealed, alleging as error the charge of the court and certain rulings on the admission of evidence.

Seymour C. Loomis, of New Haven, for appellant. Charles S. Hamilton, of New Haven, for appellee.

SHUMWAY, J. The claimed error of the court in the charge to the jury is contained in the following paragraph taken from the charge, where the court was dealing with the question of damages:

"In arriving at the amount of your verdict, you should make no deductions on any theory that she might have been cured earlier by different treatment; for, if you find that she in good faith employed such medical aid as she thought suitable and endeavored to cure herself, it makes no difference whether she used the best methods in such endeavor to cure herself or not. She should not suffer anything, or any loss, even if you come to the conclusion that any other kind of medical treatment might have effected a cure."

The plaintiff on the trial had offered evidence that she had sustained injuries which were permanent, that as soon as possible after the infliction of her injury she had procured medical treatment from a physician and surgeon in good standing and long experience, and that she had followed his advice and taken his treatment. The defendant offered evidence that the "plaintiff did not act with reasonable care, endeavoring to cure herself of her injuries, but that, had she received proper treatment, she would have recovered much sooner." It is contended by the defendant that the court should have left to the jury as a question of fact whether the plaintiff had exercised ordinary care in her efforts to effect a cure. It is true that it was the duty of the plaintiff to use ordinary care to cure and restore herself, and reckless or...