Silva v. City of Hartford
| Decision Date | 23 March 1954 |
| Citation | 104 A.2d 210,141 Conn. 126 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SILVA v. CITY OF HARTFORD. In re PHILLIPS' ESTATE. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Leon RisCassi, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Robert Y. Pelgrift, Hartford, Robert E. Cohn, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, * JJ.
This appeal was taken by the plaintiff from the court's denial of her motion to set aside a verdict by which the jury found the issues for the defendant. The plaintiff brought her action under § 2126 of the General Statutes, as amended, Cum.Sup.1953, § 957c, which provides for the recovery of damages by a person injured by means of a defective road or bridge. She alleged, in her complaint, that her decedent, Bessie Phillips, was injured on May 26, 1951, at about 8 o'clock in the evening, and died on April 29, 1952, as a result of tripping and falling on a defective public sidewalk on Church Street in the city of Hartford. It was claimed that, while walking, her heel caught in a hole in a portion of the sidewalk consisting of a metal frame and several glass inserts. The plaintiff maintained that this defective condition had existed for a long period of time and that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of it. Her contention is that the manifest injustice of the verdict was so plain and palpable as to justify the suspicion that the jury or some of them were influenced by prejudice, corruption or partiality and that, accordingly, it was the duty of the court to set aside the verdict.
The plaintiff asserts that all her witnesses were truthful, that there was no reason for not believing them and that, as the defendant offered no evidence to contradict that presented by the plaintiff, the proof of all the essential allegations of the complaint was established. In its answer, the defendant denied many of the allegations of the complaint, including those stating that there was a defective condition in the sidewalk and that the tripping and fall of the plaintiff's decedent was caused by it. When an answer denies several paragraphs of the complaint, in each of which a material fact is alleged, a separate issue of fact is raised as respects each. Nowsky v. Siedlecki, 83 Conn. 109, 112, 75 A. 135. The defendant's denial of the essential allegations of the complaint threw upon the plaintiff the burden of proving each one upon which a separate issue was raised. The general burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff in civil actions. Daly Bros., Inc. v. Spallone, 114 Conn. 236, 241, 158 A. 237. The defendant's failure to present any evidence in contradiction of that offered by the plaintiff gives no support to the claim that the truth of all the essential allegations of the complaint was established. A plaintiff prevails not by reason of the weakness of the defendant's case but because of the strength of her own. Thaw v. Town of Fairfield, 132 Conn....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LODGE 743, INT. ASS'N OF MACHINISTS v. United Aircraft Corp.
...v. Pishtey, 153 Conn. 545, 553, 219 A.2d 225 (1966); Wetherell v. Hollister, 73 Conn. 622, 626, 48 A. 826 (1901); Silva v. Hartford, 141 Conn. 126, 104 A.2d 210 (1954); 29 Am.Jur.2d ?? The burden of proof in the secondary sense of going forward with the evidence rests upon the party, who at......
-
Lukas v. City of New Haven
...of the complaint has been proven, since the general burden of proof in civil actions is on the plaintiff. See Silva v. Hartford, 141 Conn. 126, 128, 104 A.2d 210 (1954). We therefore find no error as claimed. Finally the plaintiff contends that the court erred in denying his motion to amend......
-
DeSena v. Waterbury, (SC 15980)
...of proof at the trial was on the plaintiff; Somers v. LeVasseur, 230 Conn. 560, 568, 645 A.2d 993 (1994), citing Silva v. Hartford, 141 Conn. 126, 129, 104 A.2d 210 (1954); and the defendant had no obligation to plead such a special defense. Moreover, because the trial court specifically ad......
-
Eichman v. J & J Bldg. Co., Inc.
...from the traditional principle that in a civil case "[t]he general burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff...." Silva v. Hartford, 141 Conn. 126, 129, 104 A.2d 210 (1954). As a necessary element of her claim for a deficiency judgment, the plaintiff was required to prove that the property w......