Silverman v. Springfield Advertising Co.

• Decision Date: 14 May 1935
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: SILVERMAN v. SPRINGFIELD ADVERTISING CO. et al.

179 A. 98

120 Conn. 55

SILVERMAN v. SPRINGFIELD ADVERTISING CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 14, 1935

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Frederick M. Peasley Judge.

Action by Joseph Silverman against the Springfield Advertising Company and another, for recovery of damages for personal injuries and expenses resulting from an automobile collision brought to the superior court in Hartford county and tried to a jury. Verdict for the plaintiff for $1,500, which he moved to set aside as inadequate and against the law and the evidence. The motion was denied, judgment entered on the verdict, and the plaintiff appealed.

Error and new trial ordered.

Jacob Bresnerkoff, of Hartford, for appellant.

De Lancey S. Pelgrift, of Hartford, for appellees.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

HAINES, Judge.

On the evening of April 7, 1934, the plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile driven by Maurice Goldstein, which was proceeding south on the state highway from Worcester to Hartford, and when in Enfield, about five hundred feet south of the boundary line between Massachusetts and Connecticut, the car was in collision with another car owned by the named defendant, which was proceeding northerly toward Springfield and driven by its agent John J. O'Carroll, causing the injuries complained of. Upon this appeal the liability of the defendant is not in question.

The plaintiff offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proved, among other facts, that his injuries included cuts about the face and head, and a broken leg; that as a result of these and other injuries he received, he was unable to return to his employment for ten weeks; that he thereafter worked for only three or four hours per day for eight to ten weeks more, and was unable to resume full and normal activities for four or five months following the accident; that his leg would not be normal for a year but would continue to swell and pain him; that the foot did not rest squarely upon the ground; and that its condition and that of the ankle would be permanent. He further claimed to have proved that his only income before the accident was his salary of $38 per week as the manager of a shoe store, plus commissions which he earned, averaging $12 to $15 per week; that during his ten weeks' absence from his employment, his employer loaned him his salary of $38 per week for ten weeks, and this he has agreed to repay; that he received full pay for the succeeding period of partial employment and has not made any arrangement for repayment of any part of it.

The main ground of this appeal is the claim that the damages awarded by the jury are inadequate. There are at least three assignments of claimed errors in the charge relating to this contention. The jury were instructed that in addition to compensation for the personal injuries, " you will consider, in reaching the amount of your verdict, how much should be assessed by way of pecuniary loss, for expenses incurred in an endeavor to effect a cure, nursing and doctors' bills, and from any loss of employment; and then give consideration to what you should award in order to fairly and justly compensate the plaintiff for the pain and suffering that has been endured and will hereafter be suffered. You will take all these matters into consideration and, using your best judgment and experience in human affairs, award such sum as you consider should be awarded to fairly and justly compensate the plaintiff for the injuries received. *** The plaintiff asks you to reasonably and fairly compensate him for the expenses to which he has been put, the loss of wages, and for such sums as will reasonably compensate him for the pain and suffering that he has endured." No instruction was given as to the...