Ballard v. Kaplan

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Ballard v. Kaplan

364 A.2d 225, 169 Conn. 689, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 863

DecidedDecember 2, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 364 A.2d 225 (Ballard v. Kaplan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ballard v. Kaplan, 364 A.2d 225, 169 Conn. 689, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 863 (Colo. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was an action sounding in negligence brought by the plaintiff, who claimed [690]*690damages for injuries he alleges he sustained when he was seated in the front seat of his car and was struck in the eye by a newspaper which the defendant passenger in the front seat passed over his left shoulder onto the rear seat.

The case was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict for the defendant which the court refused to set aside. The plaintiff took no exceptions to the court’s charge on the issue of liability.

The negligence issue was one of fact properly to be heard by the jury, and we find no error in the ruling of the court in denying the motion of the plaintiff to set aside the verdict for the defendant and in rendering judgment on the verdict.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

This was an action sounding in negligence brought by the plaintiff, who claimed [690]*690damages for injuries he alleges he sustained when he was seated in the front seat of his car and was struck in the eye by a newspaper which the defendant passenger in the front seat passed over his left shoulder onto the rear seat.

The case was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict for the defendant which the court refused to set aside. The plaintiff took no exceptions to the court’s charge on the issue of liability.

The negligence issue was one of fact properly to be heard by the jury, and we find no error in the ruling of the court in denying the motion of the plaintiff to set aside the verdict for the defendant and in rendering judgment on the verdict.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 A.2d 225, 169 Conn. 689, 1975 Conn. LEXIS 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-v-kaplan-conn-1975.