Cohen v. City of Bridgeport

Connecticut Superior Court

Cohen v. City of Bridgeport

1 Conn. Super. Ct. 75

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 12, 1935

DocketFile No. 43991

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Conn. Super. Ct. 75 (Cohen v. City of Bridgeport) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohen v. City of Bridgeport, 1 Conn. Super. Ct. 75 (Colo. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

The law stated by the Court to the Jury with reference to the conclusiveness of the testimony of one Rickles was substantially that under a certain set of circumstances the plaintiff was bound by the testimony of this witness. Manifestly this was erroneous. No party is bound by the testimony of any witness whom he calls unless the facts to which he testifies are not controverted or in dispute.McCue vs. McCue, 100 Conn. 448, 553; State vs. Guilfoyle,109 Conn. 124, 133.

Ordinarily I would be very reluctant to set aside a verdict because of some error contained in the charge in the hope that the error might be considered harmless if an appeal were taken to the Supreme Court of Errors. However, in this case the testimony of Rickles was so material to the question of liability on the part of the City that the error committed by the Court may not reasonably be considered as harmless.

Accordingly, the verdicts set aside and a new trial is ordered.

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

The law stated by the Court to the Jury with reference to the conclusiveness of the testimony of one Rickles was substantially that under a certain set of circumstances the plaintiff was bound by the testimony of this witness. Manifestly this was erroneous. No party is bound by the testimony of any witness whom he calls unless the facts to which he testifies are not controverted or in dispute.McCue vs. McCue, 100 Conn. 448, 553; State vs. Guilfoyle,109 Conn. 124, 133.

Ordinarily I would be very reluctant to set aside a verdict because of some error contained in the charge in the hope that the error might be considered harmless if an appeal were taken to the Supreme Court of Errors. However, in this case the testimony of Rickles was so material to the question of liability on the part of the City that the error committed by the Court may not reasonably be considered as harmless.

Accordingly, the verdicts set aside and a new trial is ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Conn. Super. Ct. 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-city-of-bridgeport-connsuperct-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack