Sanderson v. Bob's Coaster Corp...
Decision Date | 12 June 1947 |
Citation | 54 A.2d 270,133 Conn. 677 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | SANDERSON v. BOB'S COASTER CORPORATION. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Quinlan, Judge.
Action by Harry Sanderson against Bob's Coaster Corporation to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence of defendant in operating a train on its roller coaster. The jury returned a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
No error.
David M. Reilly, of New Haven, and David Goldstein, of Bridgeport, (Edwin A. Levere, of West Haven, on the brief), for appellant (defendant).
Philip Reich, of Bridgeport, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.
The plaintiff was injured while riding as a passenger in a train operated by the defendant on its roller coaster located at Savin Rock in West Haven, and brought this action to recover damages. He alleged that his injuries were due to the negligence of the defendant in that it failed to use reasonable care to maintain the apparatus in a reasonably safe condition and failed to make proper inspection of it and to take proper precautions for the protection of its patrons. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed from the denial of its motion to set it aside, and because of numerous rulings on evidence.
The propriety of the court's refusal to set aside the verdict is to be tested by the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. The jury reasonably could have found the following facts: On August 12, 1944, and for a long time prior thereto, the defendant maintained and operated at Savin Rock a roller coaster known as ‘The Thunderbolt.’ A train of eight cars is operated on two steel tracks. The cars are joined together by a ball and socket joint. Each car consists of one seat, thirty inches wide, in which two people may sit snugly. The train leaves the loading station, goes down a slight grade, makes a left turn through a tunnel, and then metal hooks or ‘dogs' underneath the cars engage in a conveyor chain of heavy metal which hauls the train to the top of the first grade, the high point of the entire structure. At or near the top each car is released from the chain, and when the rear car has been released the train proceeds down the first dip and runs to the end of the ride on its own momentum. The chain is engaged in the motor house of the coaster by a sprocket gear turned by an electric motor, and forms an elongated loop with an overall length of about four hundred and forty feet. It is constructed of cast steel and malleable iron. When the chain is in proper condition and unworn, the dogs under the cars, and the sprockets of the gear in the motor house engage the chain smoothly, so that the cars are carried to the top of the first incline and released without any jerk. Outside of the motor house, as the chain goes up the incline, it runs in a metal trough about six inches deep, passes over four idlers at the top of the riser, and is returned to the motor house in a metal trough which runs under the tracks. In normal operation the chain is covered with a dark, greasy lubricant and as it runs its course produces considerable noise, which has a steady, regular sound. When a chain of this character is excessively worn, the noise produced is loud and irregular and there is a periodic slapping noise which is readily distinguishable from the sound produced by an unworn chain. This is owing to the fact that as the chain wears, it increases in length, and slack is created. The wear is gradual, and the length of the chain and the slapping noise increase gradually. Excessive slack in the chain produces periodic jerking of the cars because of the failure of the dogs under the cars to engage properly in the chain and the failure of the chain to mesh...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dipietro v. Farmington Sports Arena Llc., No. 29175.
...rather than the admissibility of the [expert's opinion] evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sanderson v. Bob's Coaster Corp., 133 Conn. 677, 682, 54 A.2d 270 (1947). In addition, Practice Book § 17-46 “sets forth three requirements necessary to permit the consideration of materia......
-
Grayson v. Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin and Kuriansky
...the expert's qualifications properly go to the weight, and not to the admissibility, of his testimony. Sanderson v. Bob's Coaster Corporation, 133 Conn. 677, 682, 54 A.2d 270 (1947)." (Citations omitted.) Davis v. Margolis, supra, 215 Conn. at 416, 576 A.2d 489. Because the trial court reas......
-
Munn v. Hotchkiss Sch.
...conflicting testimony); see also Davis v. Margolis, 215 Conn. 408, 417, 576 A.2d 489 (1990) (citing Sanderson v. Bob's Coaster Corp., 133 Conn. 677, 682, 54 A.2d 270 (1947) ); Johnson v. Chaves, 78 Conn.App. 342, 346–47, 826 A.2d 1286, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 911, 832 A.2d 70 (2003) ; Soren......
-
State v. Ortiz
...Asherman, supra, 718, 478 A.2d 227; Oborski v. New Haven Gas Co., 151 Conn. 274, 280, 197 A.2d 73 (1964); Sanderson v. Bob's Coaster Corporation, 133 Conn. 677, 682, 54 A.2d 270 (1947). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Luntz to give his opinion that the bite marks pr......