Walters v. Hansen
| Decision Date | 07 November 1923 |
| Citation | 99 Conn. 680,122 A. 564 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | WALTERS v. HANSEN ET AL. |
Appeal from District Court of Waterbury; Frederick M. Peasley Judge.
Action by Elizabeth Walters against Einer A. Hansen and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. No error.
Paragraph 4 of the amended complaint was as follows:
(4) Said injuries to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence and want of care of the defendants and their agent or servant in: (a) Failing to have said automobile truck under proper control; (b) failing to have the brakes of said automobile truck in sufficient repair; (c) failing to have a suitable and competent servant to operate said automobile truck; (d) failing to give any proper or reasonable signal of the approach of said automobile truck (e) failing to observe said fence and avoid striking and knocking it against the plaintiff; (f) failing to observe that the passageway between the house located on said premises and the said fence was not wide enough for the said truck to pass through; (g) in driving said automobile truck against said fence striking and knocking said fence against the plaintiff, throwing her to the ground, and causing her to be injured and damaged as specified in paragraph 3.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence of the defendants, brought to the district court of Waterbury and tried to the jury before Peasley, J. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and appeal by defendants for errors in charge and from the denial of their motion to set aside the verdict.
Frank P. McEvoy and Francis P. Guilfoile, both of Waterbury, for appellants.
Charles W. Bauby and Joseph A. Hackett, both of Waterbury, for appellee.
The defendants' truck was being driven by their servant and agent from private property adjoining North Main street in Waterbury, to the street, through an opening in the fence along the sidewalk of the street made by the removal of a section of the fence. While driving through this opening, the servant and agent drove the truck against this fence, causing a part of it to fall over and onto the sidewalk and against the plaintiff, knocking her down as she stood upon the sidewalk in the exercise of due care waiting for the truck to pass, and causing her injuries for which she seeks a recovery in this action.
The defendants' motion to set aside the verdict as against the evidence and as excessive was properly denied. The court was correct in charging in effect that if the jury found that the plaintiff had proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence the ground of negligence alleged in paragraph 4 (g) of the complaint, viz. " in driving said automobile truck against said fence, striking and knocking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bushnell v. Bushnell
... ... Mulligan v. New Britain, 69 Conn. 96, 102, 36 A ... 1005; Brown v. New Haven Taxicab Co., 93 Conn. 251, ... 257, 105 A. 706; Walters v. Hansen, 99 Conn. 680, ... 683, 122 A. 564; Tower v. Camp, 103 Conn. 41, 46, ... 130 A. 86 ... In any ... ordinary case, one cannot ... ...
-
Gower v. Strain
... ... R. 785; ... Mulligan v. New Britain, 69 Conn. 96, 102, 36 A ... 1005; Brown v. New Haven Taxicab Co., 93 Conn. 251, ... 257, 105 A. 706; Walters v. Hansen, 99 Conn. 680, ... 683, 122 A. 564; Tower v. Camp, 103 Conn. 41, 46, ... 130 A. 86; Carlson v. Connecticut Co., 95 Conn. 724, ... 112 A ... ...
-
Smith v. Czescel
...Britain, 69 Conn. 96, 102, 36 A. 1005 [1897]; Brown v. New Haven Taxicab Co., 93 Conn. 251, 254, 105 A. 706 [1919]; Walters v. Hansen, 99 Conn. 680, 683, 122 A. 564 [1923]; Towers v. Camp, 103 Conn. 41, 47, 130 A. 86 [1925]. In any ordinary case, one cannot go to sleep while driving an auto......
-
Sagor v. Joseph Burnett Co.
... ... resort to the evidence, as the appellant asks, for the ... purpose of testing the [122 Conn. 451] charge. Walters v ... Hansen, 99 Conn. 680, 682, 122 A. 564 ... There ... is no error ... In this ... opinion, the other Judges ... ...