Loukides v. United Illuminating Co.

• Decision Date: 23 November 1970
• Citation: 160 Conn. 66,273 A.2d 719
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: James LOUKIDES v. The UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY et al.

Page 719

273 A.2d 719

160 Conn. 66

James LOUKIDES v. The UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Nov. 23, 1970.

Alexander Winnick, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).

Michael J. Dorney, New Haven, for appellee (named defendant).

Barry R. Schaller, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was William P. Simon, New Haven, for appellee (defendant Fredricksen).

Before ALCORN, C.J., and HOUSE, COTTER, THIM and RYAN, JJ.

COTTER, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff, a New Haven policeman, sued to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained when a gust of wind blew a helmet from the head of the defendant Arthur Fredricksen, an employee of the defendant the United Illuminating Company, and struck the plaintiff on the head. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that the occurrence and his resultant injuries were caused by the carelessness and negligence of the defendant Fredricksen, an agent of the defendant the United Illuminating Company. The court directed a verdict in favor of both defendants and thereafter it denied the plaintiff's motion to set the verdict aside. Counsel have made no distinction in the liability of the two defendants. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment and pursues, as the sole assignment of error, the claim that the court erred in denying his motion to set the directed verdict aside. "In reviewing the action of the trial court, in first directing and thereafter refusing to set aside the verdict, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Leary v. Johnson, 159 Conn. 101, 102, 267 A.2d 658. The direction of a verdict is not favored. It 'is justified only 'if upon the evidence the jury could not reasonably and legally have reached any other conclusion than that embodied in the verdict as rendered * * * and if had the verdict been rendered for the other party, the evidence was so weak that it would be proper for the court to set it aside." Kirchner v. Yale University, 150 Conn. 623, 624, 192 A.2d 641, 642.

The jury might reasonably have found the following facts: On September 21, 1961, at about 7:45 a.m., the plaintiffs, a police officer in the city of New Haven, was performing traffic duty at an intersection in New Haven, during a severe windstorm. Employees of the defendant, the United Illuminating Company, were in the area working on the named defendant's poles and trees for the purpose of removing and disengaging wires which had blown down. While the plaintiff was performing his duties, the defendant Fredricksen, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, and a co-worker, George Ott, were working as a team upon a pole which was about seventy-five feet from the intersection. Both men were wearing the same type of protective helmet. The defendant was working on the upper part of the pole approximately five minutes when his helmet blew off his head and struck the plaintiff on the head. The defendant saw the helmet as it floated through the air and when it struck the plaintiff. It was Fredricksen's belief that while his back was to the wind and he moved his body he might have ducked a little bit and a gust of wind lifted the hat off the back of his head and when it did, it came off through the front and it just went off. During the time he had the helmet in his vision, the defendant did not see a chin strap attached to the helmet or a chin strap flying in the air. After the helmet struck the plaintiff it rolled away from him. The foreman of the United Illuminating Company crew picked up the helmet. A chin strap was not attached to it. A search was made by the foreman for the chin strap but it was never found.

The specifications of negligence in the complaint charged that the...