Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1915 |
| Citation | 90 Conn. 18,96 A. 169 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROMA v. THAMES RIVER SPECIALTIES CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Gardiner Greene, Judge.
Action by Loreto Roma against the Thames River Specialties Company. Verdict for plaintiff for $5,000 was set aside on defendant's motion, and plaintiff appeals. No error.
The action is to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $5,000, which the trial court set aside upon motion of the defendant. The plaintiff was employed in a paper mill operated by a tenant of the defendant, and situated in the third story of the defendant's factory building. The tenant also had storage facilities in the basement. In the building was a freight elevator communicating between the several floors and basement. This elevator was operated and controlled by the defendant, and used by the tenant and its employés in the course of its business. The plaintiff, while working for the tenant, was injured in riding up on the elevator by having his legs crushed between its platform and the floor of the third story. The manner in which the accident occurred and the direct cause of it were in dispute.
Charles W. Comstock and Lee R. Robbing, both of Norwich, for appellant. Christopher L. Avery, of New London, for appellee.
PRENTICE, C. J. (after stating the facts as above). The court, having refused to direct a verdict for the defendant, set aside one which the jury returned in favor of the plaintiff. There was nothing irregular or improper in this. Cook v. Morris, 66 Conn. 196, 211, 33 Atl. 994.
It was the court's duty to set aside the verdict if its manifest injustice was so plain and palpable as to justify the suspicion that the jury or some of its members were influenced by prejudice, corruption, or partiality. Fell v. Hancock Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 Conn. 494, 496, 57 Atl. 175; Burr v. Harty, 75 Conn. 127, 129, 52 Atl. 724. And this is true even if the evidence was conflicting, and there was direct evidence in favor of the plaintiff who prevailed with the jury. Bradbury v. South Norwalk, 80 Conn. 298, 300, 68 Atl. 321; Cook v. Morris, 66 Conn. 196, 211, 33 Atl. 994; Kinne v. Kinne, 9 Conn. 102, 106, 21 Am. Dec. 732. Clearly the action of a jury may be as unreasonable and as suggestive of being produced by improper influences in passing upon the credibility of witnesses and in the weighing of conflicting testimony as in any other respect. It is one of the duties of a judge, in the due...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birgel v. Heintz
...A.2d 904; Slabinski v. Dix, 138 Conn. 625, 628, 88 A.2d 115; Brower v. Perkins,135 Conn. 675, 681, 68 A.2d 146; Roma v. Thames River Specialities Co., 90 Conn. 18, 20, 96 A. 169; Loomis v. Perkins, 70 Conn. 444, 447, 39 A. 797; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., §§ 187, 196.' Butler v. Steck, supra, ......
-
Maldonado v. Flannery
...(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fazio v. Brown , 209 Conn. 450, 454, 551 A.2d 1227 (1988) ; see Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co. , 90 Conn. 18, 19, 96 A. 169 (1915) ("[i]t was the [trial] court's duty to set aside the verdict if its manifest injustice was so plain and palpable as to......
-
Labbe v. Hartford Pension Com'n
...Co. v. Schuss, 221 Conn. 768, 774, 607 A.2d 418 (1992); Palomba v. Gray, supra, at 24-25, 543 A.2d 1331; Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co., 90 Conn. 18, 19-20, 96 A. 169 (1915). "Limiting that discretion, however, is the litigants' constitutional right to have issues of fact determined b......
-
Rejouis v. Greenwich Taxi, Inc.
...188 Conn. 626, 453 A.2d 418 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 928, 103 S. Ct. 2088, 77 L. Ed. 2d 299 (1983); Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co., 90 Conn. 18, 19-20, 96 A. 169 (1915).... "The decision to set aside a verdict entails the exercise of a broad legal discretion that, in the absence......