Stebel v. Conn. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1915 |
| Citation | 96 A. 171,90 Conn. 24 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STEBEL v. CONNECTICUT CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.
Action by Madeline A. C. Stebel against the Connecticut Company to recover damages for a personal injury claimed to have been caused by defendant's negligence while she was a passenger on a trolley car. The case was tried to the jury, and the court directed a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Arthur B. O'Keefe and David E. Fitzgerald, both of New Haven, for appellant. Thomas M. Steele, of New Haven, for appellee.
The plaintiff was injured by her dress catching and throwing her to the ground as she was stepping off the running board of an open trolley car after it had stopped. The only evidence of negligence on the defendant's part consisted of photographs of the car, which were admitted in evidence, and showed that the running board used by passengers in getting on and off the car was constructed with a riser or toe board between the floor of the car and the back edge of the running board, which riser was made in three sections, with openings between the sections. The testimony was that the plaintiff's skirt caught in or about one of these openings, but in what manner or for what reason it caught did not appear. It was not claimed that the car was out of repair or that it was defective, otherwise than as the presence of these openings was claimed to constitute a defect in its construction. There was no evidence as to the reason for the existence of these openings, and (except as might be inferred from this accident) no evidence that they were inherently dangerous, or, if not inherently dangerous, that they had become so for any reason. The plaintiffs whole case was that, being a passenger on the defendant's car, she was injured because her skirt, which was in good condition, caught, for some unexplained reason, in or about one of these openings while she was getting off the running board and in the exercise of due care.
The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant: First, because the case is one to which the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should have been applied; and, second, because the plaintiff had offered sufficient evidence of negligence in the construction of the car to warrant the jury in finding a verdict for the plaintiff. These claims are logically inseparable, for the doctrine of res ipsa...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giles v. City of New Haven
...[156 Conn. 471, 479, 242 A.2d 695 (1968) ]; Briganti v. Connecticut Co., 119 Conn. 316, 320, 175 A. 679 (1934); Stebel v. Connecti Co., [90 Conn. 24, 26, 96 A. 171 (1915) ]; 4 F. Harper, F. James & O. Gray, [Torts (2d Ed.1986) §§ 19.5 through 19.12]. Whether the doctrine applies in a given ......
-
Schurgast v. Schumann
...negligent than not, by showing how the accident occurred, without offering any evidence to show why it occurred.' Stebel v. Connecticut Co., 90 Conn. 24, 26, 96 A. 171, 172; Lowman v. Housing Authority, 150 Conn. 665, 669, 192 .a.2d In the instant case, the court found that ordinarily a sal......
-
Malvicini v. Stratfield Motor Hotel, Inc.
...evidence of negligence has been introduced. This doctrine was discussed by this court in the leading case of Stebel v. Connecticut Co., 90 Conn. 24, 26, 96 A. 171 (1915), where we held that "the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of common sense and not a rule of law which dispenses wi......
-
Jump v. Ensign-Bickford Co.
...was entirely in the control of the defendant. In Schiesel v. Poli Realty Co., 108 Conn. 115, 121, 142 A. 812, 814, following Stebel v. Connecticut Co., supra, stated three conditions under which the doctrine of res ipsa lequitur might apply: " (1) That the situation, condition, or apparatus......