Burns v. Reardon

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Burns v. Reardon

168 A. 878, 117 Conn. 679, 1933 Conn. LEXIS 225

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedNovember 7, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 A. 878 (Burns v. Reardon) 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

Burns v. Reardon, 168 A. 878, 117 Conn. 679, 1933 Conn. LEXIS 225 (Colo. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for injuries suffered by her when the automobile in which she was riding ran into a horse belonging to the defendant, which was at large upon the highway. The plaintiff bases her appeal upon the ground that the doctrine res ipsa loquitur applied in the situation and required a judgment in her favor. Whether that doctrine would have necessitated such a judgment in the absence of rebutting evidence that the defendant used due care, we have no need to inquire. The inference of negligence which in certain situations may be drawn from the happening of an accident cannot prevail where upon the evidence, the trial court has found that the defendant used due care. Firszt v. Capitol Park Realty Co., 98 Conn. 627, 644, 120 Atl. 300; Ruerat v. Stevens, 113 Conn. 333, 336, 155 Atl. 219. In this case, with all the evidence before it, the trial court has found that the defendant exercised reasonable care and diligence in the care and custody of the horse. The further finding, that the presence of the horse upon the highway could not be explained, is not sufficient to invalidate the conclusion that the defendant was in the exercise of such care. Sweeney v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 143 N. Y. Sup. 636, 638; Bourguignon v. Peninsular Ry. Co., 40 Cal. App. 689, 694, 181 Pac. 669; Baran v. Reading Iron Co., 202 Pa. St. 274, 286, 51 Atl. 979; Desmarchier v. Frost, 91 Vt. 138, 145, 99 Atl. 782.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for injuries suffered by her when the automobile in which she was riding ran into a horse belonging to the defendant, which was at large upon the highway. The plaintiff bases her appeal upon the ground that the doctrine res ipsa loquitur applied in the situation and required a judgment in her favor. Whether that doctrine would have necessitated such a judgment in the absence of rebutting evidence that the defendant used due care, we have no need to inquire. The inference of negligence which in certain situations may be drawn from the happening of an accident cannot prevail where upon the evidence, the trial court has found that the defendant used due care. Firszt v. Capitol Park Realty Co., 98 Conn. 627, 644, 120 Atl. 300; Ruerat v. Stevens, 113 Conn. 333, 336, 155 Atl. 219. In this case, with all the evidence before it, the trial court has found that the defendant exercised reasonable care and diligence in the care and custody of the horse. The further finding, that the presence of the horse upon the highway could not be explained, is not sufficient to invalidate the conclusion that the defendant was in the exercise of such care. Sweeney v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 143 N. Y. Sup. 636, 638; Bourguignon v. Peninsular Ry. Co., 40 Cal. App. 689, 694, 181 Pac. 669; Baran v. Reading Iron Co., 202 Pa. St. 274, 286, 51 Atl. 979; Desmarchier v. Frost, 91 Vt. 138, 145, 99 Atl. 782.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A. 878, 117 Conn. 679, 1933 Conn. LEXIS 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-reardon-conn-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack