Ciburri v. Rosner

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Ciburri v. Rosner

152 A. 584, 112 Conn. 683, 1930 Conn. LEXIS 73

DecidedDecember 12, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A. 584 (Ciburri v. Rosner) 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

Ciburri v. Rosner, 152 A. 584, 112 Conn. 683, 1930 Conn. LEXIS 73 (Colo. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The claim of the plaintiff is that, while in the store of the defendant, she was assisting him in getting some articles from a high shelf, that he stood upon a stepladder to reach them, handed them to her, and she carried them across the store to a counter, and that, as she was doing this, the defendant’s small child, who was riding a velocipede about the store, ran into her and caused her to fall. The trial court, however, has found that the child, instead of being engaged in riding the velocipede about the store, was sitting upon it near the counter and that the plaintiff collided with her. These findings have sufficient support in the testimony of the defendant’s clerk, who stated that, as he stood wiping his hands on a towel at the entrance to the washroom at the back of the store, he saw the accident, and who described it substantially as found by the court. We cannot correct the finding in any respect which would materially affect the conclusion of the trial court that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The claim of the plaintiff is that, while in the store of the defendant, she was assisting him in getting some articles from a high shelf, that he stood upon a stepladder to reach them, handed them to her, and she carried them across the store to a counter, and that, as she was doing this, the defendant’s small child, who was riding a velocipede about the store, ran into her and caused her to fall. The trial court, however, has found that the child, instead of being engaged in riding the velocipede about the store, was sitting upon it near the counter and that the plaintiff collided with her. These findings have sufficient support in the testimony of the defendant’s clerk, who stated that, as he stood wiping his hands on a towel at the entrance to the washroom at the back of the store, he saw the accident, and who described it substantially as found by the court. We cannot correct the finding in any respect which would materially affect the conclusion of the trial court that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A. 584, 112 Conn. 683, 1930 Conn. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciburri-v-rosner-conn-1930.