Tammaro v. Ledewitz
| Decision Date | 30 December 1968 |
| Citation | 157 Conn. 346,254 A.2d 458 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Lucy TAMMARO v. William LEDEWITZ et al. |
Howard F. Zoarski, New Haven, for appellants (defendants).
Albert R. Annunziata, Orange, with whom, on the brief, was Donald G. Walsh, New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ.
The defendants have appealed from a judgment rendered following a jury verdict for the plaintiff, who brought this action against them as the owners of premises in New Haven on whoch she claimed to have fallen. The defendants are the owners of a building in which the plaintiff was employed. A large asphalted parking area, also owned by the defendants, adjoins the building on two sides. A sidewalk runs along the front of the building, parallel to it, and extends to State Street. Another sidewalk runs through the parking area, extending from the building out to James Street. The plaintiff alleged that, as she was leaving her place of employment about 5 p.m. on January 2, 1964, she walked over the parking area to get to James Street and, owing to the negligence of the defendants, fell on an accumulation of ice in the parking lot.
Among the defendants' many assignments of error, there are several which are related to rulings by the trial court in connection with a question as to the precise location of the plaintiff's fall. In her original complaint dated December 23, 1964, the plaintiff alleged that she was walking over a parking area 'located west of, next to, adjacent and in front of' the building and that in the parking area 'and particularly at about ten feet in from the sidewalk' there was an accumulation of ice and snow. In compliance with an order of the court granting a motion of the defendants that the plaintiff be required to make her complaint more specific by stating the location of the alleged fall, the plaintiff, on October 1, 1965, filed an amendment to her complaint which alleged the place of the fall to be '(i)n the said parking area, and particularly at about ten feet in from the sidewalk and at a point from near the right end of the large 'Lee Beachwear' sign as one faces the building.'
The case was reached for trial in September, 1966. The record discloses that during a discussion in chambers counsel for the plaintiff requested permission to amend the complaint to designate the location of her fall as being at a point opposite the left end, instead of the right end, of the Beachwear sign as one faces the building. The record discloses nothing further about this chambers discussion. Later, in open court, after the jury were selected, the plaintiff moved for permission to file a substituted complaint changing the allegation as to the place where she fell. The defendants strenuously objected, pointing out that in 1965 the precise location of the fall had been described as a result of their motion for a more specific statement, that in January, 1966, following this amendment, they had taken a deposition from the plaintiff and that the parties had had two pretrial sessions, all without any suggestion from the plaintiff that her pleading would be further amended. In support of their opposition they aptly cited the case of Johnson v. Toscano, 144 Conn. 582, 136 A.2d 341. It appears that the newly alleged location of the fall was between fifty and one hundred feet away from the location originally claimed. The plaintiff claimed that the location specified in her more specific statement was 'a typographical error at most.' Despite the defendants' objections, the court permitted the substituted complaint to be filed.
Subsequently, in the course of the cross-examination of the plaintiff, the defendants' attorney made reference to a sketch which he claimed was drawn by the plaintiff's attorney in the plaintiff's presence at the time her deposition was taken and which pinpointed the location of the fall with relation to the building and the street lines. The defense counsel claimed that the sketch showed the location of the plaintiff's fall as being at the point originally alleged and not at the location as to which the plaintiff testified at the trial. The sketch was admitted as an exhibit for identification, and the point marked thereon is as the defense counsel has claimed. When the sketch was shown to the plaintiff, she denied any knowledge of it. The plaintiff's attorney denied that he drew the sketch. 1 At this point the defendants moved for a mistrial. Their coun...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Falby v. Zarembski
...to one of the parties. See, e.g., Wesson v. F.M. Heritage Co., 174 Conn. 236, 239-40, 386 A.2d 217 (1978); Tammaro v. Ledewitz, 157 Conn. 346, 348-51, 254 A.2d 458 (1968); Fisher v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 142 Conn. 275, 278, 113 A.2d 587 (1955). For the reasons stated, we believe that thi......
-
Lawson v. Godfried
...should be permitted; see, e. g., Wesson v. F. M. Heritage Co., 174 Conn. 236, 239-40, 386 A.2d 217 (1978); Tammaro v. Ledewitz, 157 Conn. 346, 348-51, 254 A.2d 458 (1968); Fisher v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 142 Conn. 275, 278, 113 A.2d 587 (1955); but we have never found an abuse of discret......
-
Wesson v. F. M. Heritage Co.
...discretion is a legal discretion and is subject to review. Robinson v. Faulkner, 163 Conn. 365, 376, 306 A.2d 857; Tammaro v. Ledewitz, 157 Conn. 346, 350, 254 A.2d 458; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 63. As this court observed in DuBose v. Carabetta, 161 Conn. 254, [174 Conn. 240] 263, 287 A.2d......