Bodek v. Connecticut Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Bodek v. Connecticut Co.

111 A. 590, 95 Conn. 441, 1920 Conn. LEXIS 113

DecidedNovember 10, 1920

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A. 590 (Bodek v. Connecticut Co.) 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

Bodek v. Connecticut Co., 111 A. 590, 95 Conn. 441, 1920 Conn. LEXIS 113 (Colo. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

*442 Per Curiam.

The above-entitled actions were tried together upon the same evidence, Rozovsky being the driver of the automobile, and Bodek a passenger therein, at the time of collision of the defendant’s trolley-car with this automobile. A verdict in each case was directed for the defendant, because of the inadequacy of the evidence to show any negligence, of the motorman of the defendant as alleged, which was the proximate cause of the injuries and damage sued for.

Our consideration of the evidence satisfies us that the conclusion of the trial court was not only not erroneous, but was the only conclusion which could reasonably be drawn from the evidence. We have no occasion to pass upon the question of the due care of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs offered a sign, found near the place of the accident some six months thereafter, and claimed to have been suspended from defendant’s cross-wires prior to the accident. This was properly excluded. No proof was offered that the sign was the same sign as the one Candee testified he had seen suspended from the cross-wires prior to the accident. Without such proof the evidence was wholly immaterial.

There is no error in either case.

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

*442 Per Curiam.

The above-entitled actions were tried together upon the same evidence, Rozovsky being the driver of the automobile, and Bodek a passenger therein, at the time of collision of the defendant’s trolley-car with this automobile. A verdict in each case was directed for the defendant, because of the inadequacy of the evidence to show any negligence, of the motorman of the defendant as alleged, which was the proximate cause of the injuries and damage sued for.

Our consideration of the evidence satisfies us that the conclusion of the trial court was not only not erroneous, but was the only conclusion which could reasonably be drawn from the evidence. We have no occasion to pass upon the question of the due care of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs offered a sign, found near the place of the accident some six months thereafter, and claimed to have been suspended from defendant’s cross-wires prior to the accident. This was properly excluded. No proof was offered that the sign was the same sign as the one Candee testified he had seen suspended from the cross-wires prior to the accident. Without such proof the evidence was wholly immaterial.

There is no error in either case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A. 590, 95 Conn. 441, 1920 Conn. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bodek-v-connecticut-co-conn-1920.