Smith v. Hausdorf
| Decision Date | 28 May 1918 |
| Citation | 92 Conn. 579,103 A. 939 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SMITH v. HAUSDORF. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; William L. Bennett, Judge.
Action by Nellie Smith against Benedict E. Hausdorf for personal injury from a defective stairway in a dwelling house. From a judgment on a verdict for defendant, plaintiff appeals. No error.
The defendant owned a tenement house in the city of Waterbury, with stairs leading to the second floor of the house from the dooryard. The plaintiff, a tenant, with another family occupied the second floor of this house, and both used the stairway as the only means of ingress and egress to and from their apartments to the yard. The plaintiff alleges that the stairs leading from the ground to the house at the entrance on the side were broken, out of repair, dangerous and defective, which rendered them unsafe to travel upon, and that this condition was known, or ought to have been known, to the defendant. The complaint also alleges that on a certain day the plaintiff left her tenement on the second floor and was proceeding down these steps when, in the exercise of due care, in stepping upon one of these stairs, it gave way and precipitated her down to the ground, and that she suffered, as a result of this fall, many severe and painful bruises about the limbs and body.
Charles W. Bauby, of Waterbury, for appellant. Francis P. Guilfoile, of Waterbury, for appellee.
RORABACK, J. (after stating the facts as above). The action of the trial court in refusing to charge as requested, in the Charge as given and in its rulings upon the admission of evidence, was assigned as error by the defendant. Eight of the as- signments of error, relating to the refusal of the court below to charge as requested, were not pursued, and may be treated as waived. By the ninth assignment, the plaintiff contends that the charge was insufficient in law for the guidance of the jury in reaching a verdict. This assignment is too general, and raises no question we are bound to consider. General Statutes, § 802. It may also be stated, in relation to this assignment, that the record discloses that the charge as it was given presented the issues raised by the pleadings in a plain, concise, and proper manner; that the law relating to these issues was fully and correctly stated, and amply sufficient for the guidance of the jury.
The principal contention of the plaintiff was that the charge was argumentative, that the court was unfair in its comments upon the evidence, and that in several parts of the charge, pointed out in the appeal, the judge usurped the province of the jury. It is well settled by this court that a judge in his charge to the jury may comment upon and express his opinion on the weight of the evidence, provided all questions of fact are left to the jury without any direction by the court as to how the same shall be determined. Upon this point it is only necessary for us...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hafner
...See Sears v. Curtis, 147 Conn. 311, 315-16, 160 A.2d 742; Thibodeau v. Connecticut Co., 139 Conn. 9, 14, 89 A.2d 223; Smith v. Hausdorf, 92 Conn. 579, 582, 103 A. 939. Similarly, the questions concerning the defendant's 'habit of picking up girls' may have been relevant as showing his metho......
-
Cicero v. E. B. K., Inc.
...law relating to these issues was fully and correctly stated, and was amply sufficient for the guidance of the jury.' Smith v. Hausdorf, 92 Conn. 579, 581, 103 A. 939, 940. The defendants next assign as error the court's denial of their motion to set aside the verdict as not supported by the......
-
Curfman v. Monongahela West Penn Public Service Co.
... ... etc., R. Co. v. Rowell, 151 Ky. 313, 151 S.E. 950; ... Stewart v. Everts, 76 Wis. 35, 44 N.W. 1092, 20 Am ... St. Rep. 17; Smith v. Hausdorf, 92 Conn. 579, 103 A ... 939; Consolidated Traction Co. v. Lambertson, 60 N ... J. Law, 452, 38 A. 683; Hutchinson v. Jersey Central ... ...
-
Sejdic v. Kirslis, No. CV 05-4011073 (CT 4/13/2006)
...is not admissible when it relates to the patient's statements concerning the cause of an injury. See, for example, Smith v. Hausdorf, 92 Conn. 579, 582, 103 A. 939 (1918); Maggi v. Mendillo, supra, 147 Conn. 667. With respect to the chiropractor's report submitted by Response Worldwide in t......