Meade v. Warehouse Transport, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 October 1973 |
| Citation | 338 A.2d 111,165 Conn. 553 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Philip E. MEADE et al. v. The WAREHOUSE TRANSPORT, INC. |
John J. Reid, Hartford, with whom was George Muir, Hartford, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Andrew J. O'Keefe, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Robert E. Walsh, West Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
This case arose from a motor vehicle accident which occurred in the early morning hours of September 30, 1967, on route 44 in the town on Barkhamsted. A tank trailer loaded with milk, owned by the plaintiff Hatch Milk Hauling Company, and operated by the plaintiff Philip E. Meade, collided with a tractor-trailer owned by the defendant The Warehouse Transport, Inc., and operated by its employee John F. McKay. The physical evidence indicated that the defendant's tractor-trailer had been in a collision with a rock ledge, overturned and almost completely blocked route 44. The driver, McKay, died in this accident and his body was found on the highway. There were no witnesses. An unknown length of time after this accident, the tank trailer operated by Meade and proceeding on route 44 collided with the overturned tractor-trailer resulting in personal injuries to Meade and damage to the tank trailer. This action, sounding in negligence, was brought by Meade and Hatch Milk Hauling Company, and the case was tried to a jury.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the defendant moved for a directed verdict as to both plaintiffs on the ground that there was no such evidence as would permit the jury to find the issues of negligence for the plaintiffs. As permitted by § 255 of the Practice Book, the court reserved decision on this motion. It then granted the plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict on the defendant's counterclaim. The jury returned that verdict as directed and also returned a verdict for both plaintiffs on their complaint. The defendant thereupon moved to set aside the latter verdict, for judgment on its earlier motion for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court, after deliberation, directed that judgment be rendered for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict. The plaintiffs have appealed on the grounds that the court erred in granting the defendant's motions to set aside the verdict, for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the basis of lack of evidence.
We have reviewed the evidence submitted for the jury's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...cases, more probable than not, had not been satisfied. Boehm v. Kish, 201 Conn. 385, 517 A.2d 624 (1986); Meade v. Warehouse Transport, Inc., 165 Conn. 553, 338 A.2d 111 (1973); Toomey v. Danaher, 161 Conn. 204, 286 A.2d 293 (1971); Chasse v. Albert, 147 Conn. 680, 166 A.2d 148 (1960). We h......
-
Boehm v. Kish
...plaintiff where the issues of fault or proximate cause have not been removed from the realm of conjecture. Meade v. Warehouse Transport, Inc., 165 Conn. 553, 556, 338 A.2d 111 (1973); Toomey v. Danaher, 161 Conn. 204, 207, 286 A.2d 293 (1971); Chasse v. Albert, 147 Conn. 680, 683, 166 A.2d ......
-
Decastro v. Odetah Camping Resort, Inc.
...no basis in facts to conclude that accident caused by intoxication to prove dram shop liability); Meade v. Warehouse Transport, Inc., 165 Conn. 553, 555–56, 338 A.2d 111 (1973) (holding that many possible proximate causes and lack of facts pointing significantly to any one of them as due to......
-
Derby v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.
...of the evidence printed in the appendices to the briefs. Orzech v. Wynne, 166 Conn. 499, 500, 352 A.2d 314; Meade v. Warehouse Transport, Inc., 165 Conn. 553, 555, 338 A.2d 111. Our examination leads us to conclude that it was error to deny the motion to set aside the verdict and for a judg......