Sette v. Dakis.
| Decision Date | 12 June 1946 |
| Citation | 48 A.2d 271,133 Conn. 55 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SETTE et al. v. DAKIS. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Mellitz, Judge.
Action by Joseph Sette against Nick Dakis for personal injuries sustained in a fall through an open trap door in the floor of defendant's restaurant as alleged result of defendant's negligence in which the Laconia Baking Company intervened as a party plaintiff. From a judgment for plaintiffs after trial to the court, defendant appeals.
No error.
Martin E. Gormley and Joseph M. Brandon, both of New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
Bernard Greenberg, of New Haven, for appellee (named plaintiff).
John E. McNerney, of New Haven (Francis J. Moran, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellee (intervening plaintiff Laconia Baking Co.).
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.
This is an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by the named plaintiff by falling through an open trap door in the floor of the defendant's restaurant. These material facts appear in the finding as corrected: On June 5, 1943, the defendant owned and operated a restaurant in New Haven. A counter, with stools in front for patrons, extended along the wall to the left as one entered. Between the front of cupboards attached to this wall and the counter was an aisle about two feet wide, used by the counterman in serving customers. About midway in the counter was an opening providing a passway to this aisle. In the floor of the aisle near the end at the rear of the restaurant and eight feet nine inches from the opening, was a trap door three feet nine inches long and two feet two inches wide. It was fifteen inches from the counter and opened back against the wall, where it could be fastened by a wooden latch. Unless so fastened it would not stay open. A steep stairway led from the rear edge of the trap doorway to the cellar floor eight feet five inches below. To the rear of this doorway there was a chain attached to the counter which could be suspended across the aisle to exclude people from the trap door area and there was a similar chain in front of it.
For nearly two years the plaintiff had delivered bread and rolls to the defendant's restaurant every morning shortly after 4 o'clock, depositing them in compartments under the counter opposite the trap door. The defendant's counterman, Polinos, who was always on duty when the plaintiff called, knew that the plaintiff did this as he had been directed. He also knew the course which the plaintiff regularly followed in so doing. On June 5, 1943, Polinos saw the plaintiff enter the restaurant carrying one carton on his shoulder and holding another in front of him. While the plaintiff was proceeding as usual along the front of the forward portion of the counter toward the opening, Polinos was approaching from beyond the trap door along the aisle behind the rear portion of the counter and, as they met at the opening, stepped into the aisle behind the forward portion to let the plaintiff pass. No warning was given the plaintiff that the trap door was open and neither of the guard chains was in place. He passed Polinos, proceeded along the aisle toward the rear of the restaurant and fell through the open trap door onto the basement floor, receiving the injuries complained of. Prior to his fall he had no knowledge of the existence of the trap door.
Shortly before the plaintiff arrived at the restaurant Polinos had opened the trap door to permit Goldberg, another baker, to enter the basement to get some boxes and had closed the door after him. A few minutes later Goldberg rapped on the door with a stick to indicate his desire to come out. Polinos heard the rap and at the time saw the plaintiff approaching about half way down the forward portion of the counter. This was a minute before the plaintiff fell and Polinos had walked over the trap door while bringing coffee from the rear of the restaurant. Goldberg did not open the trap door.
The court concluded that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence; that Polinos opened the trap door and therefore the defendant was liable for his negligence in failing either to put up the guard chain or to warn the plaintiff; and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's fall and injuries. The defendant has assigned error in these conclusions. Only the attack on the conclusion as to the defendant's negligence merits discussion. Concerning this, the defendant's contention is restricted to the claim that the court's inference that Polinos opened the trap door a moment before the plaintiff fell was unwarranted. The defendant makes no claim and there is no evidence that anyone other than Polinos or Goldberg could have opened the door. The court's finding that Goldberg did not open it, which is supported by his explicit testimony, eliminated the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Preston v. Keith, 13919
... ... Brockett, 109 Conn. 87, 92, 145 A. 659 (1929); Sette v. Dakis, 133 Conn. 55, 60, 48 A.2d 271 (1946); Lange v. [217 Conn. 16] Hoyt, 114 Conn. 590, 595, 159 A. 575 (1932). It is also settled law that ... ...
-
Futterleib v. Mr. Happy's, Inc.
... ... injured by the negligence of another must use reasonable care to promote recovery and prevent any aggravation or increase of the injuries." ' Sette v. Dakis, 133 Conn. 55, 60, 48 A.2d 271 [1946]. When there are facts in evidence that indicate that a plaintiff may have failed to promote his ... ...
-
Hallas v. Boehmke and Dobosz, Inc.
... ... Brockett, 109 Conn. 87, 92, 145 A. 659 (1929); see also Sette v. Dakis, 133 Conn. 55, 60, 48 A.2d 271 (1946); Lange v. Hoyt, 114 Conn. 590, 595, 159 A. 575 (1932). We observed that an assessment of whether a ... ...
- Thompson v. Lupone