Hemmings v. Weinstein
| Decision Date | 31 March 1964 |
| Citation | 199 A.2d 687,151 Conn. 502 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Elsie O. HEMMINGS et al. v. Pauline WEINSTEIN et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Edward Deltzer, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Julius B. Schatz, Hartford, for appellants (defendants).
Joseph P. Kenny, Hartford, for appellees (plaintiffs).
Before KING, C. J., MURPHY, ALCORN and COMLEY, JJ., and HOUSE, Superior Court Judge.
The plaintiffs are tenants in the defendants' apartment building. The named plaintiff, hereafter called the plaintiff, recovered a verdict for damages for personal injuries due to a fall on a walk leading to the entrance to the apartment building and to a later fall in her own apartment. In the verdict, the plaintiff's husband, the other plaintiff, recovered damages for the resulting medical expenses. The defendants moved to set the verdict aside and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court denied the motions, and from the judgment rendered on the verdict the defendants have appealed. The only issue is the correctness of the court's denial of the motions. The defendants claim that the evidence failed to establish that they were negligent, that it did establish the plaintiff's contributory negligence, and that the damages awarded the husband were excessive.
In reviewing the court's action, we first consider whether, on the evidence in the case, a directed verdict for the defendants would have been proper. Only if that question requires an affirmative answer do we come to the question whether the court erred in refusing to render judgment for the defendants notwithstanding the verdict. Robinson v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 140 Conn. 414, 421, 101 A.2d 491; Donch v. Kardos, 149 Conn. 196, 200, 177 A.2d 801; Masterson v. Atherton, 149 Conn. 302, 316, 179 A.2d 592. In deciding the primary question, we give the evidence the most favorable construction in support of the verdict of which it is reasonably capable. Petrillo v. Bess, 149 Conn. 166, 167, 179 A.2d 600; Kerrigan v. Detroit Steel Corporation, 146 Conn. 658, 660, 154 A.2d 517. The verdict was reached on conflicting evidence and should stand unless the jury could not reasonably have reached the conclusion which they did. Canfield v. Sheketoff, 104 Conn. 28, 30, 132 A. 401.
There was evidence from which the jury could have found that on February 17, 1961, the plaintiff walked out of the apartment building at about 8:15 a. m. on her way to work. She slipped on a large area of unsanded hard-packed snow or ice which had been on the entrance walk to the building since the preceding evening and fell, fracturing her right hip. She entered a hospital where a pinning operation was performed, was instructed in the use of crutches before being discharged, and was told to use the crutches and to avoid bearing weight on her right hip until the fracture healed. The fracture predisposed her to falling again. Three days after her discharge from the hospital she was walking in her apartment with the aid of the crutches, the left crutch slipped, and she fell on her left side, fracturing her left hip. This fall and the resulting fracture were due to the pressure exerted on the left crutch to avoid bearing weight on her right side. She was again hospitalized, a part of the head and neck of the left femur was removed, and a metallic prosthesis, which will be an irritant to the surrounding tissue, was installed. It will be necessary for her to continue medical treatment, including visits to her doctor at least twice a year, and she will require further x rays of both hips. As a result of the two falls the plaintiff's husband incurred bills totaling, to the date of the trial, $3966.88. The jury might reasonably have concluded that there was a defect in the walk due to ice and snow which caused the plaintiff's first fall, that the defect was readily discoverable by the defendants and that, within the ten and one-half hours during which the defect might have been found to have existed, the defendants should have discovered it in ample time to remedy it before the plaintiff fell. Sheehan v. Sette, 130 Conn. 295, 297, 33 A.2d 327.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A-G Foods, Inc. v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.
...to the [plaintiff]. Petrizzo v. Commercial Contractors Corporation, 152 Conn. 491, 499, 208 A.2d 748 [1965]; Hemmings v. Weinstein, 151 Conn. 502, 504, 199 A.2d 687 [1964]; Lurier v. Danbury Bus Corporation, 144 Conn. 544, 547, 135 A.2d 597 [1957]." Pelletier v. Bilbiles, supra at 546, 227 ......
-
Warren v. Stancliff
...would be sufficient to support a finding of the defendant's constructive notice of the slippery condition. See Hemmings v. Weinstein, 151 Conn. 502, 505, 199 A.2d 687. Therefore, the court committed error by withdrawing from the jury's consideration the question of the defendant's duty to T......
-
Gibo v. City and County of Honolulu, 4701
...cause, defendant's negligence is deemed to be the proximate cause of both the original and subsequent injuries. Hemmings v. Weinstein, 151 Conn. 502, 199 A.2d 687 (1964); Pope v. Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co., supra; Lester v. Hennessey, 20 Ill.App.2d 479, 156 N.E.2d 247 (1959); Squires v. Reyn......
-
Kowinko v. Salecky
...the question whether the court erred in refusing to render judgment for the defendants notwithstanding the verdict. Hemmings v. Weinstein, 151 Conn. 502, 503, 199 A.2d 687. Directed verdicts are not favored and should be granted only when the jury could not reasonably and legally reach any ......
-
Handling Preexisting and Subsequent Injuries
...The court found the original defendant liable for the subsequent and different injury. The tenant plaintiff in Hemmings v. Weinstein, 151 Conn. 502,199 A.2d 687 (1964), fractured her right hip in a slip and fall on the front walk, and was instructed to use crutches after hip surgery. Three ......