Antalick v. Tickey

8 Conn. Super. Ct. 125, 8 Conn. Supp. 125, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 52
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedApril 13, 1940
DocketFile 57891
StatusPublished

This text of 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 125 (Antalick v. Tickey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Antalick v. Tickey, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 125, 8 Conn. Supp. 125, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 52 (Colo. Ct. App. 1940).

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

The plaintiff, on April 28, 1939, was 24 years of age and weighed about 150 pounds. For 14 years he had been learning to play and had played a trumpet in an orchestra as a profession. For some months prior to April 28, 1939, he had been away from home playing the trumpet in an orchestra on a ship cruising southern waters. On that date, having recently reached home in Bridgeport, he met on a street comer near his home, at about 7 p.m., a friend of long standing named John Dudas. They went to a tavern,, owned and operated by Frank J. Tickey, to have a friendly drink. Each ordered a glass of beer and they stood at the bar about twenty minutes renewing their acquaintance and each consumed his one glass of beer. Neither the plaintiff nor Dudas was at all under the influence of liquor. While stand' mg at the bar they sang. They were warned by the proprietor not to sing. From time to time they continued to sing. The *126 proprietor sent his “handy man,” Eugene Jacques, to get a policeman.

The defendant, Edward P. Tickey, is a man of great strength and agility and weighs 210 pounds. He worked in the tavern as a bartender for his brother, Frank J. Tickey, but his work for the day had terminated at 5:30 p.m. and he had left the tavern. At the hour in question he was acting as a steward in a nearby club. Eugene Jacques, who had been sent for a policeman, couldn’t find one and went to the club and asked the defendant where a policeman could be found. Quoting the testimony of the defendant, “Gene didn’t call me, he come over and said, ‘I was sent for an officer.’ I said ‘Did you find one?’ He said ‘No.’ I said, ‘Forget about it. Let’s go down and see what the trouble is’.” The defendant, accompanied by Jacques, went to the tavern, entered and struck the plaintiff in the mouth with his closed right fist, cutting the plaintiff’s lips and gums and loosening two front teeth of the upper jaw, the upper left central and lateral incisors. The defendant testifies to being attacked by the plaintiff and Dudas and striking in self-defense. I do not credit this statement. As the defendant rushed into the tavern and toward the plaintiff and Dudas, I have no doubt that they grabbed the defendant; I have no doubt that they used toward him profane and possibly obscene epithets. The proprietor of the tavern weighs 220 pounds. He found no occasion to use force toward the plaintiff. He sent for a policeman. The defendant had no excuse at all for coming to the tavern. Without excuse he assumed to take into his own hands the ejectment of the plaintiff and Dudas from the tavern. The character of the blow struck by the defendant is well described in his own testimony. “I had a perfect shot. I hit him with my right hand with the closed hand, and I hit him in the mouth and he started to bleed.”

The liability of the defendant is clear. The measure of the ■damage is not so easy to determine.

The plaintiff offers testimony of a reputable dentist. The ■defendant does not offer any evidence as to the injuries received hy the plaintiff. This dentist testifies as follows:

“Q — And when you examined him on the 1st or 2nd of 'May what did you observe was the matter with him, Doctor?

A — Well, his upper lip was badly lacerated.

*127 Q — Just go easy. Upper lip badly lacerated? A — And the gum tissue above the anterior teeth was pretty badly swollen and contusions, and the teeth were very loose.

Q — What teeth? A — The upper left central and lateral incisors.

The court: How many teeth?

The witness: Two.

Q — I see. And did you treat the teeth? A- — Yes, for a period of months for the purpose of trying to keep them there so that he could play.

Q — You say you treated the teeth for months to keep them there, and what was the matter with the teeth? A — Well, just that they had suffered a terrific impact, and naturally their hold on the tissues had been damaged, and probably if not killed immediately might die over a period of time.

Q — rWhat might die? A — The nerves in the teeth.

Q — And was the treatment that you were giving him to prevent the nerves from dying? A — No, the treatment that I administered was, at first I washed out his mouth, cleaned out the wound on the upper lip, and treated that soft tissue of his gum to get that healed up.

Q — Yes? A — And then we could try to give him probably lamp therapy, ultra-violet rays, and see if we could get some healing in the tissue below, and, of course, the only other thing we can do is to try to get scar tissue in the mouth so that the tissues may repair themselves and get those teeth back in some solid condition again. As a matter of fact, we construed splints, wire splints.

Q — Did you put wire splints in his mouth? A — I did.

Q — And what is the effect of your treatment having on these teeth? A — Well, the effect of the wire splints is to keep the teeth in one position so that while he is going through his normal duties of the day, and biting, he won’t keep constantly pushing those teeth, moving them; much the same as a fractured bone, you set the bone.

The court: In other words, the wire splints are to immobilize the teeth?

The witness: That’s right.

*128 Q — Are the teeth becoming immobilized? A — They have to some extent, but I don’t think they will ever be what they were. As a matter of fact, I would say that ultimately I think he will lose them.

Q — Are you still treating him? A — Well, the only reason he has been coming up lately is for a general checkup, and we usually, over a period of time, take periodic X-rays to note the repair of tissue.

Q — Yes? A — And we also want to find out whether any abscess conditions might arise as a result of the accident, or any other thing that might cause loosening of teeth.

Q — And it is your opinion that ultimately he will lose these teeth? A — I would, say in the practice of his profession I think he will. Those anterior teeth carry such a load that I don’t think that he will have them very, very long.

Q — Have you made up his bill up to the present time, Doctor? A — Well, up to the present time I can say his bill would stand about $50, but I was in the process of taking an impression to see if I could construct a denture that would be placed in the back of his upper anterior teeth so that when he put the pressure of his horn against the anteriors it would hold them. Whether or not that will do any good, of course, we can’t tell. It was merely a chance.

Q — What would the approximate cost of that be? A- — -Well, altogether it would probably run him, the whole bill would run about $75, if that was constructed.

The court: That includes the $50 you spoke of?

The witness: It does.

Q — And you have no idea how long he will have to continue under your care? A — Well, I can’t say. After that appliance is put in his mouth it will travel along for a period of time, but it is hard to say whether or not it will stay there ultimately.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Conn. Super. Ct. 125, 8 Conn. Supp. 125, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antalick-v-tickey-connsuperct-1940.