Lombardi v. J. A. Bergren Dairy Farms, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1965
• Citation: 213 A.2d 449,153 Conn. 19
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Susan LOMBARDI et al. v. J. A. BERGREN DAIRY FARMS, INC. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 449

213 A.2d 449

153 Conn. 19

Susan LOMBARDI et al. v. J. A. BERGREN DAIRY FARMS, INC.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 28, 1965.

John P. McKeon, Hartford, for appellants (plaintiffs).

J. Brooks Johnson, Jr., Hartford, for appellee (defendant).

Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, SHANNON and HOUSE, JJ.

HOUSE, Acting Justice.

The plaintiffs, Susan Lombardi, a minor, and her mother, instituted this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by Susan, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff. The court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant and thereafter denied the plaintiffs' motion to set the verdict aside. The plaintiffs have appealed.

The trial court filed no memorandum of decision explaining its denial of the motion, thus leaving this court without any information as to the underlying reasons. The briefs and claims of counsel, however, both proceed on the premise that the decision of the trial court was predicated upon the conclusions that the substituted complaint failed to state a cause of action and that there was insufficient evidence to present a question of fact for the jury's determination on the issue of the defendant's alleged negligence and its causal relation to the plaintiff's injuries.

We first examine the complaint to determine if it states a cause of action. In brief, it is alleged that the plaintiff resided with her parents in Enfield; that they were regular customers of the defendant dairy, which had supplied them with a box to be kept by their side door for the deposit of milk bottles; that on or about July 4, 1961, the defendant's delivery man, who knew that there were three small children resident on the premises, delivered a two-quart bottle of milk and, instead of depositing it in the milk box, left it in front of the storm door, which was hinged to open outward. The two most significant paragraphs of the complaint then follow: '6. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff, Susan Lombardi, came out of the house through the side entrance, struck the said two-quart bottle breaking the same and landing on said broken glass, receiving serious personal injuries which are hereinafter more fully described. * * * 8. The defendant was negligent in that it failed to place said milk in the box provided for that purpose; in that it placed the milk in an improper and unsafe place; in that it left said milk in a place where it was likely to cause injury to the occupants of such home particularly the said minor plaintiff.' The complaint then proceeds in usual form to recite in three paragraphs the damages claimed to have resulted '[s]olely as a result of the negligence of the defendant as aforesaid.'

It is the claim of the defendant that the complaint fails to state a cause of action because the only negligence alleged is in the placing of the bottle of milk, which the plaintiff thereafter 'struck', with no allegation as to how the plaintiff happened to strike the bottle or happened to land on it and no allegation that any act of the defendant caused the plaintiff to strike the bottle or caused her to land on it.

The burden rests on the plaintiff to allege a recognizable cause of action in her complaint. Stavnezer v. Sage-Allen & Co., 146 Conn. 460, 461, 152 A.2d 312. In a negligence action it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to allege and prove not only the negligence of the defendant but a causal relation between the negligence alleged and the damages claimed. A causal relation between the defendant's wrongful conduct and the plaintiff's injuries is a fundamental element without which a plaintiff has no case. Hence, this causal relation must be alleged and proved. Gothreau v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 148 Conn. 65, 67, 167 A.2d 244; Kinderavich v. Palmer, 127 Conn. 85, 15 A.2d 83; Mahoney v. Beatman, 110 Conn. 184, 147 A. 762, 66 A.L.R. 1121; see Green, 'Proximate Cause in Connecticut Negligence Law,' 24 Conn.B.J. 24.

While it is true that the complaint contains no express allegation that any act of the defendant caused the plaintiff to strike the milk bottle, nevertheless, three specific acts of negligence on the part of the defendant are alleged followed by an express allegation that '[s]olely as a result of the negligence of the defendant as aforesaid' the plaintiff was injured. There was thus a sufficient allegation of the necessary element of causation related to the negligence alleged, and the complaint adequately stated a cause of action for common-law negligence.

We next consider the evidence offered in proof of the plaintiff's allegations. Directed verdicts are not favored and should be granted only when the jury could not reasonably and legally reach any other conclusion. Santor v. Balnis, 151 Conn. 434, 435, 199 A.2d 2; Kirchner v. Yale University, 150 Conn. 623, 624, 192 A.2d 641; Bader v. United Orthodox Synagogue, 148 Conn. 449, 455, 172 A.2d 192. We must review the action of the trial court in the light of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. Nuzzo v. Connecticut Steel Co., 147 Conn. 398, 400, 161 A.2d 791; Lurier v. Danbury Bus Corporation, 144 Conn. 544, 547, 135 A.2d 597.

The jury might reasonably have found the following facts: On July 4, 1961, the plaintiff was four years of age and lived with her parents and two sisters. The defendant sold and delivered milk to the plaintiff's family and had furnished a wooden box into which the milk bottles could be placed. The box was kept adjacent to the side door of the plaintiff...