Vita v. McLaughlin
| Decision Date | 25 March 1969 |
| Citation | 255 A.2d 848,158 Conn. 75 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Patricia VITA v. Edwin J. McLAUGHLIN. |
Vincent Villano and Thomas F. Brown, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
Robert C. Flanagan, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Peter C. Dorsey, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).
Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, COTTER and RYAN, JJ.
This is a negligence action in which the plaintiff, a minor, eleven years of age, seeks to recover for personal injuries received as the result of a fall following a collision with another skater in the defendant's roller skating rink. The plaintiff alleged in her complaint that the defendant was negligent in admitting to his skating rink, and in permitting to skate, inexperienced and unskilled skaters who were likely to lose their balance or control and bump into other skaters, thereby causing injuries to them; that the defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the presence of such inexperienced and unskilful skaters in a rink crowded with a large number of young people; and that the defendant failed and neglected to prevent such unskilled skaters from using the rink and failed to remove them from the floor and properly to supervise and protect other skaters, including the plaintiff, from injury by such green, inexperienced and unskilled skaters. The defendant, in his answer, denied the allegations of negligence and pleaded the special defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. The jury found for the defendant. Upon the denial of the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict, the plaintiff has appealed from the judgment rendered thereon.
All of the plaintiff's assignments of error are directed to the court's instructions to the jury. The plaintiff excepted to the charge on the ground, inter alia, that the court should have referred to the evidence sufficiently to instruct and guide the jury concerning the application of the law to the facts. Reference was made particularly to the failure of the court to discuss the evidence and the claims of the parties in relation to the law concerning (1) the specifications of negligence contained in the complaint; (2), in accordance with the plaintiff's claims of proof, actual or constructive knowledge on the part of the defendant as to the conduct, over a period of more than three hours, of a boy who allegedly caused the plaintiff's injury by knocking her down; and (3) the defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence and their application to a child of the plaintiff's age. The court told the jury that the pleadings had been read to them (by counsel) and that they would have them in the jury room to read at their leisure. The court discussed neither the specifications of negligence contained in the complaint nor the allegations of the special defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence.
The primary purpose of the charge is to assist the jury in applying the law correctly to the facts which they might find to be established. Worden v. Francis, 153 Conn. 578, 579, 219 A.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tough v. Ives
...of the charge is to assist the jury in applying the law correctly to the facts which they might find to be established. Vita v. McLaughlin, 158 Conn. 75, 77, 255 A.2d 848; Worden v. Francis, 153 Conn. 578, 579-580, 219 A.2d 442. The extent to which a court should comment on the evidence is ......
-
Shelnitz v. Greenberg
...to furnish a practical guide to the jury as to how the stated law [was] to be applied to the evidence before them." Vita v. McLaughlin, 158 Conn. 75, 77, 255 A.2d 848 (1969); see Shea v. Tousignant, supra, 172 Conn. 60, 372 A.2d 151. In that regard, we also note that in taking the exception......
-
Logan v. Greenwich Hosp. Ass'n
... ... We conclude that the charge was not so deficient in this respect that it failed to serve as an adequate guide to the jury. Vita v. McLaughlin, 158 Conn. 75, 77, 255 A.2d 848 (1969); Corrievau v. Associated Realty Corporation, 122 Conn. 253, 256-57, 188 A. 436 (1936) ... ...
-
State v. Theriault, 13046
...v. Francis, 153 Conn. 578, 579, 219 A.2d 442 [1966]; Deutsch v. LaBonne, 111 Conn. 41, 44, 149 A. 244 [1930]." Vita v. McLaughlin, 158 Conn. 75, 77, 255 A.2d 848 (1969). For this reason, "[a] charge cannot be given in the abstract without reference to the evidence sufficient to provide guid......