Husted v. Refuse Removal Service
| Decision Date | 14 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 110833,110833 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Ethel F. HUSTED et al. v. REFUSE REMOVAL SERVICE et al. |
Herman S. Bershtein, Hamden, for aplaintiffs.
Pouzzner & Hadden, New Haven, for defendants.
The special defense alleges that the plaintiff operator 'was guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of her alleged injuries, in that she was not using or was not properly using a safety belt.' Plaintiff claims, as a matter of law, that it has no bearing on the question of proximate cause. Defendant claims it presents a question of fact.
A conclusion of negligence and prox mate cause is ordinarily one of mixed law and fact, involving the determination of the standard of care required and its application to the facts of the particular case. Davis v. Margolis, 107 Conn. 417, 420, 140 A. 823. It becomes a conclusion of law only when the mind of a fair and reasonable person could reach only one conclusion. If there is room for a reasonable disagreement, the question presented is one of fact. Johnson v. Pulidy, 116 Conn. 443, 445, 165 A. 355. Such is the case here.
Demurrer overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breault v. Ford Motor Co.
...498 P.2d 236 (1972). Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161, 168--170, 492 P.2d 1030 (1972).7 Husted v. Refuse Removal Serv., 26 Conn.Sup. 494, 227 A.2d 433 (1967). Sams v. Sams, 247 S.C. 467, 148 S.E.2d 154 (1966). Bentzler v. Braun, 34 Wis.2d 362, 387, 149 N.W.2d 626 (1967).8 Rem......
-
Bertsch v. Spears
...81; Cierpisz v. Singleton, 247 Md. 215, 230 A.2d 629; Mount v. McClellan, 91 Ill.App.2d 1, 234 N.E.2d 329; Husted v. Refuse Removal Service, 26 Conn.Sup. 494, 227 A.2d 433; and an excellent article in XLII Ohio Bar No. 2, at page 25, Mrks, 'Does the Failure to Wear Seat Belts Constitute Con......
-
Romankewiz v. Black
...not negligence per se. Defense was rejected in this case because proofs failed to show causal connection. 2. Husted v. Refuse Removal Service (1967), 26 Conn.Supp. 494, 227 A.2d 433, demurrer to special defense overruled and allowed 3. Mortensen v. So. Pacific Co. (1966), 245 Cal.App.2d 241......
-
Brown v. Case, 043010
...writers. See note, 15 A.L.R.3d 1428 & Ann.Sup. In the Superior Court of this state we have four reported cases. Husted v. Refuse Removal Service, 26 Conn.Sup. 494, 227 A.2d 433; Uresky v. Fedora, 27 Conn.Sup. 498, 245 A.2d 393; Remington v. Arndt, 28 Conn.Sup. 289, 259 A.2d 145; Clark v. St......