Romenici v. Trumbull Elec. Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 November 1958 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Agon ROMENICI v. TRUMBULL ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Robert Y. Pelgrift, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was George D. Stoughton, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
Leo V. Gaffney, New Britain, with whom was Bernard D. Gaffney, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before DALY, C. J., and BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ.
The plaintiff had a verdict for injuries sustained as the result of the negligence of the defendant. The defendant has appealed, assigning error in the denial of its motion to set the verdict aside. The question is whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the verdict.
The jury could reasonably have found the following facts: On May 9, 1949, the plaintiff was employed by a beverage company to service soda-dispensing machines. He had been so employed for two weeks. The defendant was the owner of a building, along the westerly side of which was a loading platform. The platform was about sixty feet long and sixteen feet wide, surfaced with concrete, and open along the westerly side. At the northwest corner there was a flight of wooden stairs to the ground. There were a number of hand trucks about the premises which were used in unloading trucks at the platform and for transporting materials into the building. The hand trucks were four-wheeled vehicles weighing between 150 and 200 pounds and were propelled by means of a handle at one end. The wheels at that end were swivel wheels. The platform was approximately three and one-half feet above the ground and inclined from east to west, from the wall toward the outer portion, at the rate of one-eighth of an inch per foot. The incline over the total width of sixteen feet was two inches. The slope was imperceptible to the eye and could hardly be noticed by a casual observer. There was no barrier or guard at the edge of the platform to prevent hand trucks on the platform from rolling off to the ground below, and there were no warning signs of any kind. On the morning of May 9, 1949, the plaintiff and an officer of the beverage company went to the defendant's premises to service soda-dispensing machines. An employee of the defendant suggested that they use a hand truck to transport gallon jars of syrup to the machines. The plaintiff used one of the hand trucks and then returned with it to the platform with a load of empty gallon jars. He unloaded the jars onto the end of the platform and pushed the truck half way to the rear. He then went down the platform steps. During this time the truck remained stationary. The plaintiff started to retrieve the empty jars. While he was bending down with his back toward the platform, the truck rolled across the platform and over the edge, and the handle struck...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sellie v. North Dakota Ins. Guar. Ass'n
...number of wheels on the device is not determinative of whether it constitutes a "hand truck." See Romenici v. Trumbull Electric Manufacturing Co., 145 Conn. 691, 146 A.2d 416, 417 (1958) [describing "hand trucks" as "four-wheeled vehicles ... propelled by means of a handle at one end"]; Hac......
-
DiIorio v. Tipaldi
...tit. 52, § 52--557a (1960). Kopjanski v. Festa, 160 Conn. 61, 64--65, 273 A.2d 692 (1970), citing Romenici v. Trumbull Elec. Mfg. Co., 145 Conn. 691, 693, 146 A.2d 416, 417 (1958), which expresses that duty as one of '(d)ue care (which) required the defendant, when it knew or reasonably sho......
-
Zangiacomi v. Saunders
...is inapplicable. Wright v. Coe & Anderson, Inc., 156 Conn. 145, 152, 156-57, 239 A.2d 493 (1968); Romenici v. Trumbull Electric Mfg. Co., 145 Conn. 691, 693, 146 A.2d 416 (1958).2 Although New York and Connecticut apply different standards of care, if defendant directed or controlled the wo......
-
Warren v. Stancliff
...to warn the plaintiff-invitee of dangers which the plaintiff could not reasonably be expected to anticipate. Romenici v. Trumbull Electric Mfg. Co., 145 Conn. 691, 694, 146 A.2d 416; Parmelee v. Hiller, 129 Conn. 489, 491, 29 A.2d 586. The defendant, however, had no duty to warn the plainti......