Thomas v. Katz

• Decision Date: 10 August 1976
• Citation: 370 A.2d 978,171 Conn. 412
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: John THOMAS v. Abraham KATZ.

Page 978

370 A.2d 978

171 Conn. 412

John THOMAS v. Abraham KATZ.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Aug. 10, 1976.

Edward R. Carley, Bridgeport, on the brief, for appellant (defendant).

Robert K. Lesser, Bridgeport, and Cordalie Benoit, West Hartford, on the brief, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.

BOGDANSKI, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of the defendant landlord in the maintenance of a common stairway of a multistory apartment building. From the judgment rendered on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant has appealed claiming that the verdict was not supported by the evidence, that it was excessive, and that the court erred in failing to set the verdict aside and in making various rulings on evidence.

We consider first the claimed errors with respect to the rulings on evidence. Practice Book § 631A(c)(3) requires that when error is claimed in rulings on evidence, the appellant's brief shall include 'the question or offer of exhibit; the objection and the ground on which it was based; the ground on which the evidence was claimed to be admissible; the answer, if any; the ruling; and any exception. When the basis of the ruling cannot be understood without a knowledge of the evidence . . ., a brief narrative . . . of such evidence . . . should be made.' The appellant's brief fails to set forth any of the material required by that Practice Book rule. We are, therefore, unable to review those claims.

The defendant did, however, brief a claim of error with respect to the court's charge to the jury concerning the subject of the failure to call a witness. Again a reference to the Practice Book discloses that § 249 provides in part that '(t)he supreme court shall not be bound to consider error as to the giving of, or the failure to give, an instruction unless the matter is covered by a written request to charge or exception has been taken by the party appealing immediately after the charge is delivered.' That procedure is required in order to ensure that the trial court has an opportunity to cure any defects or ambiguities in the charge, thus, avoiding the inconvenience and the expense of unnecessary retrial. Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 286, 294 A.2d 67; Prystash v. Best Medium Publishing Co., 157 Conn. 507, 512, 254 A.2d 872; Towhill v. Kane, 147 Conn. 191, 193, 158 A.2d 251. The record before us fails to reveal that the defendant filed either any request to charge or took any exception to the charge as delivered. Under those circumstances, we find no error. Tough v. Ives, supra.

The remaining claims of error concerning the verdict are tested by the evidence printed in the parties' briefs. The preliminary statements of facts contained in the parties' briefs, pursuant to §§ 631A and 632B of the Practice Book, reveal the following undisputed facts: On and before July 24, 1969, the defendant was the owner of a multistory apartment house located at Nos. 437-443 Helen Street in Bridgeport. On the date, the plaintiff made an arrangement with the defendant to rent an upstairs apartment, received a receipt for the rental payment, and was told he could move in. The next evening, along with his son and a friend, the plaintiff began to move furniture and his belongings into the apartment up through a common rear stairway. While reaching for a light chain at the top of the stairway, the plaintiff fell down the stairway and was injured. The defendant offered evidence to show that the rear stairway was illuminated by timer-controlled lights, and that the building was inspected periodically by a building superintendent and by the defendant himself. The plaintiff offered evidence to show that it was dark on the stairway, that he fell while trying to locate and pull a light chain, and that there was no illumination on the stairway because there was no bulb in the light fixture.

'(T)he question whether there was sufficient evidence (to support the verdict) is for the jury, who have the sole province of weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of the witnesses.' Hanauer v. Coscia, 157 Conn. 49, 53, 244 A.2d 611, 613. 'For the attack on the court's refusal to set aside the verdict to succeed, it must appear that the evidence furnished no reasonable basis for the jury's conclusion . . .. Kronish v. Provasoli, 149 Conn. 368, 370, 179 A.2d 823. . . . The choice of the more credible evidence was for (the jury) to make. Desmarais v. Pinto, 147 Conn. 109, 110, 157 A.2d 596.' Petrizzo v. Commercial Contractors Corporation,152 Conn. 491, 499, 208 A.2d 748, 752. Once evidence has been submitted to a jury, it is they who decide whether the evidence is sufficient for a finding of...