Meglio v. Comeau
| Citation | 79 A.2d 187,137 Conn. 551 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 27 February 1951 |
| Parties | MEGLIO v. COMEAU. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
William L. Beers and Alfred F. Celentano, New Haven, for appellant.
David M. Reilly, Jr., Edward L. Reynolds and David M. Reilly, all of New Haven, for appellee.
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages for personal injuries. He claimed that they resulted from her negligence in the maintenance of a building owned by her. She pleaded what amounted to a general denial and a special defense of contributory negligence. There was a general verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff's appeal is concerned with the charge and with the submission of an interrogatory.
The plaintiff offered evidence to prove and claimed that he had proved the following facts: The defendant's building was occupied by two stores with tenements over them. One of the stores was a tailor shop with a toilet appurtenant. The only access to it was through a common passageway and by a turn to the right into a smaller hallway. There were doors at opposite sides of this hallway. One led to the toilet, the other to the cellar. Both swung into the hall. On the afternoon of January 12, 1948, the plaintiff entered the tailor shop to get a pair of trousers. With the consent of the tailor he went into the back hall to go into the toilet. There was a light fixture in the toilet but the light was not lighted at the time in question. The hallway was dark. He entered the cellar doorway, fell to the bottom of the stairs and was injured. There were no barriers to the cellar door and the two doors could easily be mistaken one for the other.
The defendant did not dispute ownership or the physical layout but submitted the following claims of proof: The hallway was reasonably well lighted by daylight. The cellar door was equipped with a coil spring which kept the door closed when not in use. Unknown to the defendant, the plaintiff had been in this back hallway and toilet on previous occasions. He was familiar with the whole layout, including the situation as to the light in the toilet. He was over seventy years of age and had a physical condition which made him walk with an unsteady gait and caused violent jerking throughout his frame. Because of this he had not been allowed to go to the toilet alone but was always accompanied by the tailor or one of his assistants. On the day in question, neither the tailor nor his assistants knew of the projected trip. The plaintiff opened the cellar door and then fell down the stairs. He was guilty of contributory negligence.
As stated above, the answer contained two defenses. It denied negligence and, in a special defense, pleaded contributory negligence. Under General Statutes, Sup. 1939, § 1399e, Rev. 1949, § 7836, the burden of pleading and proving contributory negligence was on the defendant. No exception was taken to that portion of the charge which discussed this subject. The errors claimed in the charge had to do exclusively with the plaintiff's status as a business visitor. Under these circumstances, it may be assumed that the charge on contributory negligence was correct. A primary question, therefore, is whether a general verdict can be sustained by a correct charge on one of two defenses, regardless of the correctness of the instructions as to the other. The Connecticut rule may be stated as follows: If there is no error in the instructions as to one of two distinct defenses, a general verdict for the defendant should be sustained. McGuire v. Hartford Buick Co., 131 Conn. 417, 418, 40 A.2d 269; Lorenc v. Hartford Hospital, 127 Conn. 194, 197, 15 A.2d 313; Knight Realty Co. v. Caserta, 126 Conn. 162, 167, 10 A.2d 597; Ziman v. Whitley, 110 Conn. 108, 115, 147 A. 370; World Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Alliance Sandblasting Co., 105 Conn. 640, 646, 136 A. 681; see Sites v. Haverstick, 23 Ohio St. 626. To qualify under this definition, the defenses must be distinct. That is the decisive test. Ziman v. Whitley, supra. There is some conflict in the authorities. 3 Am.Jur. 564 § 1009. The Ziman case reviewed the Connecticut authorities at length and the doctrine was reaffirmed in the Knight case. The question must be considered settled in this jurisdiction.
The final question on this issue is whether the rule should be applied in the case at bar. The defense of contributory negligence is logically...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Burns
...not the form of their pleading, that is the decisive test governing the applicability of the general verdict rule. Meglio v. Comeau, 137 Conn. 551, 553-54, 79 A.2d 187 (1951). 'If the defenses are clearly distinct, the fact that one has not been specially pleaded ... will not prevent the ap......
-
Curry v. Burns
......788] governing the applicability of the general verdict rule. Meglio v. Comeau, 137 Conn. 551, 553-54, 79 A.2d 187 (1951). 'If the defenses are clearly distinct, the fact that one has not been specially pleaded .. ......
-
Colucci v. Pinette
...doctrine; see Johnson v. Pagano, --- Conn. ---, ---, 440 A.2d 244 (43 Conn.L.J., No. 2, pp. 6, 7) (1981); see also Meglio v. Comeau, 137 Conn. 551, 553-54, 79 A.2d 187 (1951); that the jury found for the defendant on the issue of contributory negligence, thereby precluding further review of......
-
Szachon v. Town of Windsor, 10428
...... Meglio v. Comeau, 137 Conn. 551, 553-54, 79 A.2d 187 (1951). 'If the defenses are clearly distinct, the fact that one has not been specially pleaded .. ......