Trani v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtWYNNE
Citation142 Conn. 541,116 A.2d 167
PartiesHelene M. TRANI v. ANCHOR HOCKING GLASS CORPORATION. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
Decision Date05 July 1955

Page 167

116 A.2d 167
142 Conn. 541
Helene M. TRANI
v.
ANCHOR HOCKING GLASS CORPORATION.
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
July 5, 1955.

[142 Conn. 542] William E. C. Bulkeley, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

George Schwolsky, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before [142 Conn. 541] BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ., and DEVLIN, Superior Court Judge.

Page 168

[142 Conn. 542] WYNNE, Justice.

The plaintiff sought damages in this action for personal injuries. Her claim arose out of an occurrence which took place during her employment at the plant of the Silver Lane Pickle Company in East Hartford. She was engaged in packing pickles in glass jars. Incident to the process she would, as she used each jar, tap it on a table in order to have the pickles she had placed in the jar settle down for better packing. She claims that as she tapped a particular jar in this manner it exploded into tiny fragments and the palm of her hand was seriously cut. Her action is against the manufacturer of the jar, a corporation having its plant in Ohio. Several grounds of negligence were alleged. The defendant denied fault on its part and alleged that the plaintiff was negligent in the manner in which she handled the jar and that any injury she sustained was due to her own negligence. The issues were tried to a jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff. A motion to set aside the verdict was denied, and the case is before us on the defendant's appeal.

The assignments of error attack the finding in a single particular. We will first consider this. The paragraph in question was concerned only with the claim that the jury had the right to infer that the injury to the plaintiff 'will last some time in the future.' It was this speculative element, bearing upon the extent of plaintiff's injury, that is the basis for the attack upon the court's charge, in which error is also assigned. A finding in a case [142 Conn. 543] tried to a jury is not a statement of facts which the court has found proven. Rather, it is a narrative of the facts claimed to have been proven by the parties, made for the purpose of presenting any claimed errors in the charge or rulings of the court. Fierberg v. Whitcomb, 119 Conn. 390, 392, 177 A. 135. It serves no useful purpose to seek corrections in the finding which would not make clearer the situation as related to the claimed errors. Voronelis v. White Line Bus Corporation, 123 Conn. 25, 27, 192 A. 265. Indeed, in the case before us, only the finding as made sufficiently presents the determinative issues as to the charge. We therefore have no need to consider further the correction sought.

The paragraphs in the court's charge which are attacked as erroneous bear exclusively on the jury's right to infer that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 3, 1972
    ...rulings would not be affected. See Fairbanks v. State, 143 Conn. 653, 655, 124 A.2d 893; Trani v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, 142 Conn. 541, 543, 116 A.2d The state offered in evidence thirty bags of white powder and the testimony of the chief state toxicologist that the white powder ......
  • Ford v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc., No. 13667
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 31, 1990
    ...Giambartolomei v. Rocky DeCarlo & Sons, Inc., 143 Conn. 468, 474, 123 A.2d 760 [1956].' [Id.]; Trani v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, 142 Conn. 541, 545, 116 A.2d 167 [1955]; Zullo v. Zullo, 138 Conn. 712, 715, 89 A.2d 216 [1952]." Novella v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 163 Conn.......
  • Novella v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 27, 1972
    ...court. Giambartolomei v. Rocky DeCarlo & Sons, Inc., 143 Conn. 468, 474, 123 A.2d 760.' Ibid.; Trani v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, 142 Conn. 541, 545, 116 A.2d 167; Zullo v. Zullo, 138 Conn. 712, 715, 89 A.2d From the evidence presented in the appendices to the briefs and taken in th......
  • Rael v. F & S Co., Inc., No. 3486
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • October 11, 1979
    ...805, 179 S.W. 1043 (1915); Worez v. Des Moines City Ry. Co., 175 Iowa 1, 156 N.W. 867 (1916); Trani v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, 142 Conn. 541, 116 A.2d 167 (1955) (four years after occurrence); Sherman v. Frank, 63 Cal.App.2d 278, 146 P.2d 704 (1944) (expert proof not "We are thus ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 3, 1972
    ...rulings would not be affected. See Fairbanks v. State, 143 Conn. 653, 655, 124 A.2d 893; Trani v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, 142 Conn. 541, 543, 116 A.2d The state offered in evidence thirty bags of white powder and the testimony of the chief state toxicologist that the white powder ......
  • Ford v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc., No. 13667
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 31, 1990
    ...Giambartolomei v. Rocky DeCarlo & Sons, Inc., 143 Conn. 468, 474, 123 A.2d 760 [1956].' [Id.]; Trani v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, 142 Conn. 541, 545, 116 A.2d 167 [1955]; Zullo v. Zullo, 138 Conn. 712, 715, 89 A.2d 216 [1952]." Novella v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 163 Conn.......
  • Novella v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 27, 1972
    ...court. Giambartolomei v. Rocky DeCarlo & Sons, Inc., 143 Conn. 468, 474, 123 A.2d 760.' Ibid.; Trani v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, 142 Conn. 541, 545, 116 A.2d 167; Zullo v. Zullo, 138 Conn. 712, 715, 89 A.2d From the evidence presented in the appendices to the briefs and taken in th......
  • Rael v. F & S Co., Inc., No. 3486
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • October 11, 1979
    ...805, 179 S.W. 1043 (1915); Worez v. Des Moines City Ry. Co., 175 Iowa 1, 156 N.W. 867 (1916); Trani v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, 142 Conn. 541, 116 A.2d 167 (1955) (four years after occurrence); Sherman v. Frank, 63 Cal.App.2d 278, 146 P.2d 704 (1944) (expert proof not "We are thus ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT