Bourk v. Holmberg

194 A. 726, 123 Conn. 682
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedNovember 5, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 194 A. 726 (Bourk v. Holmberg) 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
Bourk v. Holmberg, 194 A. 726, 123 Conn. 682 (Colo. 1937).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff claimed damages for the death of his testator as the result of being struck by a car while he was crossing a street. Appealing *683 from a judgment entered upon a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff does not claim error in the charge but in the failure of the trial court to enlarge upon the statements in it as to the duty of the defendant. The issue was simple and the charge adequate for the guidance of the jury. The omissions of which complaint is made fall within the principle that we will not find error in the failure of the court to give instructions upon special features of a situation where no requests to charge as to them is made. Lawlor v. Connecticut Co., 121 Conn. 511, 512, 186 Atl. 491.

There is no error.

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

Related

D'Addario v. American Automobile Insurance
113 A.2d 361 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1955)
Lane v. Ludeman
38 A.2d 178 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1944)
Lukovits v. Palmer
10 A.2d 761 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 A. 726, 123 Conn. 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bourk-v-holmberg-conn-1937.