Goldberger v. David Roberts Corp.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1953 |
| Citation | 96 A.2d 309,139 Conn. 629 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | GOLDBERGER v. DAVID ROBERTS CORP. et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Martin E. Gormley, New Haven, for appellants (defendants).
Frank J. Hennessy, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Theodore I. Koskoff, Bridgeport, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover for personal injuries sustained while he was on vacation in a children's summer camp operated by the defendants. The injuries resulted from the conduct of a fellow camper. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. In this appeal the defendants assign as error the denial of their motions to set aside the verdict and for judgment non obstante veredicto.
Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the jury would have been warranted in finding the following facts: In the summer of 1949, the plaintiff, then a boy twelve years of age, was enrolled by his father as a camper in the summer camp for boys and girls operated by the defendants in the town of Ridgefield. On July 29, during the rest hour before lunch, he was lying, reading a comic book, on his bunk in the tent to which he was assigned. A thirteen-year-old boy named Salke was in the tent at the time talking to two other boys. The four boys, together with a counselor by the name of Green, comprised the complement allocated to the particular tent. Green was not in the tent at the time. Salke started to swing a stick of wood about two feet long which was roughly cut to form an ornamental paddle. That is, at one end of the stick each side had been cut away to form what was designed to be a handle. Almost immediately after Salke started to swing the paddle it came in contact with a bathrobe hanging in the tent. This caused the body of the paddle to break off from the handle. It flew a distrance of about ten feet across the tent and struck the plaintiff on the forehead, causing the injuries complained of. Salke was a 'problem child' but in what way or to what degree he constituted a problem did not appear.
There were about 200 children in the camp. The defendants employed a personnel of over 100, of whom sixty-five were counselors. The latter for the most part students in technical or professional schools. Green, the counselor, was an ex-service man twenty-seven years old and had just completed a course in a dental school. It was his duty to have general supervision of the boys in his tent but not to be with them all of the time. That would be not only virtually impossible but also unwise, because the youngsters should be allowed to develop a sense of responsibility and have opportunity to discuss matters among themselves. At the time the plaintiff was injured Green was busy supervising the washing up process of other boys before lunch.
The piece of wood, the major portion of which hit the plaintiff, had been cut out by Salke during the arts and crafts hour. This hour immediately preceded the rest hour. The head counselor, who was in charge of arts and crafts at the time, told Salke that the paddle was not properly made and directed him to dispose of it. Salke did not have time between then and the rest hour to get rid of the paddle so he took it to the tent with him.
The complaint is in two counts, the first sounding in breach of contract and the second in negligence. The claimed breach of contract is that, contrary to their agreement, the defendants failed to provide proper, adequate and competent supervision by counselors over the activities of the campers. If by that allegation it is meant that the defendants had not provided an adequate number of qualified counselors, there is nothing in the evidence to support it. Clearly, as a matter of law, the jury could not reasonably have concluded that one counselor for each three or four children was not an adequate number. There is no evidence that any of the counselors were not qualified. If the allegation means that the counselors provided by the defendant did not actually supervise the campers properly, then it raises the same issue as that raised by the second count, namely, whether the agents of the defendants were negligent in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp.
...are] too remote to be reasonably foreseeable. Noebel v. Housing Authority, [supra] at 202, 148 A.2d 766; Goldberger v. David Roberts Corporation, 139 Conn. 629, 633, 96 A.2d 309 [1953]. Due care is always predicated on the existing circumstances." Roy v. Friedman Equipment Co., 147 Conn. 12......
-
Neal v. Shiels, Inc.
...observed had he been using reasonable care. This duty of care is no more than the standard set forth in Goldberger v. David Roberts Corporation, 139 Conn. 629, 632, 96 A.2d 309, 311: 'For a person to be held negligent, it must appear that a reasonably prudent person in his position, knowing......
-
Ruiz v. Victory Props., LLC.
...remedy the hazardous condition....”5 In support of its contention to the contrary, the defendant relies on Goldberger v. David Roberts Corp., 139 Conn. 629, 96 A.2d 309 (1953), in which the twelve year old plaintiff sought damages from the defendants, which operated a summer camp for childr......
-
Munn v. Hotchkiss Sch.
...[a fence comprised of rubber-covered wooden stakes], misjudge its height or his own agility, and fall"); Goldberger v. David Roberts Corp. , 139 Conn. 629, 630, 96 A.2d 309 (1953) (jury could not reasonably find it foreseeable that teenage camper, described as " 'problem child,' " having be......