McDonough v. Lenox Theater Co.
| Decision Date | 24 July 1956 |
| Citation | 143 Conn. 646,124 A.2d 520 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Louise McDONOUGH v. The LENOX THEATER COMPANY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Snow G. Munford, Hartford, for appellant-appellee (plaintiff)
Bradley B. Bates, Hartford, for appellant-appellee (defendant).
Before BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE, DALY and COMLEY, * JJ.
This action was brought to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff in a fall in the defendant's theater. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The court set aside the verdict but denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The plaintiff has appealed from the decision granting the motion to set aside the verdict. The defendant has filed a cross appeal based on the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The plaintiff offered evidence to prove the following facts: She is a widow seventy-five years old. On February 5, 1953, she went to the Lenox Theater near her home to view the picture. There were no ushers in the theater to escort her to a seat. It is standard practice to have ushers on duty at all performances in theaters such as the defendant's. The plaintiff in darkness went alone down an aisle and, in feeling for a seat, took hold of an arm of a seat which was loose. As a result, she fell and sustained serious injuries.
The complaint is in one count and alleges nine claims of negligence. These concern three specifications. The first deals with a defective seat. The next has to do with improper or insufficient lighting. The final one is predicated upon the claim of absence of sufficient ushering and ushers. The trial court pointed out that there was sufficient evidence as to both the second and the third specifications of negligence to support the verdict. It concluded, however, that, there being no evidence of actual or constructive notice of a defective seat, it was in error in submitting the first specification of negligence to the jury. The defendant would have been entitled to take advantage of this in assigning error. Since the court felt that there was error in the charge, it could set aside the verdict. Frisbie v. Schinto, 120 Conn. 412, 416, 181 A. 535.
Where there is only one cause of action and there is error in submitting one of the specifications of negligence, a general verdict does not cure the error. Falzone v. Gruner, 132 Conn. 415, 419, 45 A.2d 153; Ziman v. Whitley, 110 Conn....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Burns
...that the general verdict rule does not apply. Novak v. Anderson, 178 Conn. 506, 508, 423 A.2d 147 (1979); McDonough v. Lenox Theater Co., 143 Conn. 646, 648, 124 A.2d 520 (1956). Our rationale for declining to apply the rule in such circumstances is that 'the various grounds of negligence a......
-
Finley v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co.
...that the general verdict rule does not apply. Novak v. Anderson, 178 Conn. 506, 508, 423 A.2d 147 (1979); McDonough v. Lenox Theater Co., 143 Conn. 646, 648, 124 A.2d 520 (1956). Our rationale for declining to apply the rule in such circumstances is that "the various grounds of negligence a......
- Ideal Plumbing & Heating Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
-
Mack v. Perzanowski
...Trucking Co., 166 Conn. 240, 246-47, 348 A.2d 569; Fleischer v. Kregelstein, 150 Conn. 158, 160-61, 187 A.2d 241; McDonough v. Lenox Theater Co., 143 Conn. 646, 124 A.2d 520. The plaintiff points to numerous references to holes, potholes or ruts in the defendant's driveway in the evidence. ......