Sokoloski v. Pugliese

• Decision Date: 07 March 1962
• Citation: Sokoloski v. Pugliese, 179 A.2d 603, 149 Conn. 299 (Conn. 1962)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Conway SOKOLOSKI v. Jack PUGLIESE. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 603

179 A.2d 603

149 Conn. 299

Conway SOKOLOSKI v.Jack PUGLIESE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 7, 1962.

Morton C. Hansen, Jr., Simsbury, with whom, on the brief, was Thomas S. Whitman, Simsbury, for appellant(plaintiff).

Bruce W. Manternach, Hartford, with whom was Colin C. Tait, Hartford, for appellee(defendant).

Before KING, MURPHY and SHEA, JJ., and HOUSE and COTTER, Superior Court Judges.

MURPHY, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff received injuries when he attempted to complete the cutting of a partially felled tree on the defendant's property.He sued to recover therefor from the defendant.The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff which the trial court set aside, and the plaintiff has appealed.

From the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the jury could have found that on the morning of March 14, 1957, the plaintiff stopped at the defendant's house in East Granby and requested the defendant to drive him to Springfield, Massachusetts.The defendant consented.While he was preparing to go, the plaintiff, an experienced carpenter, stated that he had recently been engaged in logging and was to raze some houses.The defendant, pointing out the window, asked the plaintiff if he could cut a tree which looked as if it had fallen while it was being cut down.The plaintiff said that he could cut the tree, since he had cut bigger ones, and that he would get his chain saw from his automobile to do so.The defendant told him he would join him after he had had some coffee.The tree was eighteen or twenty inches in diameter and had been sawed about half way through at the base.The top thirty-five or forty feet had toppled over and lay on the ground.The shaft of the tree was split up the middle from the cut for about five and a half feet.The butt end of the shaft, above the split, projected over the stump to a point about four feet above the stump.The fallen portion was attached to the stump by the uncut lower section.The branches had been cut off.The plaintiff notched the tree on one side of the cut and was sawing from the opposite side when the weight of the tree shifted, pinching the saw, and as the plaintiff attempted to pull the saw out, the butt end swung over and knocked him down.He was injured.When the defendant came out of the house, he found the plaintiff lying on the ground.The defendant had seen split trees before and knew that the proper way to cut one was to saw the tree in short lengths, starting at the top of the tree and working back to the stump.

The plaintiff concedes that he was a...