Ratti v. P. Berry & Sons, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1923 |
| Citation | 98 Conn. 522,119 A. 894 |
| Parties | RATTI v. P. BERRY & SONS, Inc., et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; L. P. Waldo Marvin Judge.
Action by James M. Ratti, administrator, against P. Berry & Sons Inc., and the City of Hartford. From judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
William H. Fogerty, of Hartford, for appellant.
Joseph F. Berry, of Hartford, and Austin D. Barney, of Farmington, for appellee P. Berry & Sons, Inc.
Robert P. Butler and Thomas C. McKone, both of Hartford, for appellee City of Hartford.
The action is one to recover damages for injuries suffered by plaintiff's decedent in falling from a platform, located across the easterly part of Windsor street, Hartford, by reason of its unsafe condition and its height above the curb. The platform was erected by P. Berry & Sons, Inc., over the place where the easterly sidewalk would have been laid had there been one, and in its then condition was alleged to have been dangerous to those using the sidewalk over this platform, and to have constituted a public nuisance. The action was predicated upon this alleged nuisance and negligence.
The adequate presentation of this cause of action to the jury required that both the cause of action predicated upon the negligence of each of these defendants and that predicated upon the maintenance and continuance of a public nuisance, upon and over the location of the sidewalk, should have been submitted to the jury independently of each other.
The plaintiff assigns as error paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the charge. The charge is not numbered in paragraphs, and these various paragraphs in the assignment of errors, we are informed by counsel, cover practically the entire charge, and several of these paragraphs contain a page or more of the charge. Such an assignment violates General Statutes, § 5837. We have so frequently pointed out the impropriety and futility of such assignments of error that we are not now disposed to overlook this violation of the statutory requirement. Note (r), p. 109, Practice Book 1922 gives the citation of cases which explain fully this statutory provision requiring that reasons of appeal shall be specifically stated. The assignment of errors specifying the court's refusal to charge in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 14 of the plaintiff's requests to charge likewise violate General Statutes, § 5837. These requests are unnumbered and cover about 9 pages of the printed record. For the most part they comprise a series of statements of abstract prop...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brunk v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 31472.
...against one defendant and in favor of the others. Beem v. Beem, 141 N.E. 81, 193 Ind. 481; Ratte v. P. Berry & Sons, 119 Atl. 894, 98 Conn. 522; Beaver v. Taylor, 68 U.S. 644, 17 L. Ed. 601; Blackman v. Bloom, 31 Ill. App. 614. (7) The court erred in orally instructing the jury as to the fo......
-
Shelnitz v. Greenberg
...therefore, under our practice merely be a statement of an abstract proposition of law; Practice Book § 318; see Ratti v. Berry & Sons, Inc., 98 Conn. 522, 524, 119 A. 894 (1923), and State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281, 290, 430 A.2d 914 (1981); any more than a court may give a charge, which though......
-
Hall v. Burns
...cannot ... under our practice merely be a statement of an abstract proposition of law; Practice Book § 318; see Ratti v. Berry & Sons, Inc., 98 Conn. 522, 524, 119 A. 894 (1923); State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281, 290, 430 A.2d 914 (1981); any more than a court may give a charge, which though leg......
-
Brunk v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.
...... Beem v. Beem, 141 N.E. 81, 193 Ind. 481; Ratte v. P. Berry & Sons, 119 A. 894, 98 Conn. 522; Beaver v. Taylor, 68 U.S. 644, 17 ......