Glaser v. Waas

• Decision Date: 31 July 1911
• Citation: 80 A. 708
• Parties: GLASER v. WAAS.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

80 A. 708

GLASER

v. WAAS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 31, 1911.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.

Action by Harry Glaser against Jules Waas. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $500, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Walter P. Judson, for appellant.

Charles L. Brooks and Harry L. Brooks, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. This action is for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff In October, 1910, while in the employ of the defendant, and while he was operating a derrick belonging to the defendant. The jury returned a verdict for $500 for the plaintiff, which the defendant moved to set aside because it was against the law and the evidence. This appeal is taken only from the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict. On behalf of the plaintiff it was alleged, and evidence was offered to prove, that his injuries were occasioned by the negligence of the defendant in directing the plaintiff to work on a derrick that was inappropriate and dangerous for the work it was designed by the defendant to perform, and because the defendant furnished no helper to assist the plaintiff in the operation of the derrick; that the defendant failed to explain the dangers connected with the operation of the derrick to the plaintiff, who was under the age of 21 years, wholly unacquainted with the work he was ordered to do, and the danger to be apprehended from it. Upon all of these controlling questions the evidence was conflicting, so much so that it was peculiarly within the province of the jury to determine in whose favor there was a preponderance.

After a careful consideration of all the evidence we have reached the conclusion that this verdict is not one that would justify us in interfering with the discretion of the Superior Court, in denying the motion to set it aside. "This case presents no exceptional feature which removes it from the strict operation of the familiar principles governing our action upon appeals of this character. These have been stated and discussed in a long line of eases presenting the different conditions under which the court is asked to review the action of trial judges in dealing with the verdicts of juries in their own courts. Bissell v. Dickerson, 64 Conn. 61, 29 Atl. 226; Chatfield v. Bunnell, 69 Conn. 511, 37 Atl. 1074; Loomis v. Perkins, 70 Conn. 444, 39 Atl. 797; Howe v. Raymond, 74 Conn. 68, 49 Atl. 854; Burr v. Harty, 75 Conn. 127, 52 Atl. 724; Uncas Paper Co. v. Corbin, ...