Cohen v. Willman

Connecticut Superior Court

Cohen v. Willman

4 Conn. Super. Ct. 96, 4 Conn. Supp. 96, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 109

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 27, 1936

DocketFile #47942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 Conn. Super. Ct. 96 (Cohen v. Willman) 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. Willman, 4 Conn. Super. Ct. 96, 4 Conn. Supp. 96, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

*97 FOSTER, J.

This case was tried with the case of Haas vs. Williams, #45360. Without going into detail as to the evidence, the plaintiff claims that he was walking at the side of Haas and, since Haas was not well, was supporting him on one side, while Haas’ temyear old son was supporting him on his other side. Haas and his son, now twelve years old, both testify that the plaintiff was walking ahead of them two or three feet and that Haas was not being supported by either his son or by Cohen. Neither Haas nor his son nor any other witness testifies to seeing Cohen struck by the automobile of the defendant, or fall, or being on the ground. Cohen had some time before been injured in an automobile accident and had collected damages.

Cohen immediately after Haas was struck by the automo' bile started to get the number of the defendant’s automobile and to get the names of witnesses. Cohen gave contradictory evidence on other parts of his case. I give no credit to the testimony of Cohen where not corroborated. I find he failed to prove the essential allegations of his complaint by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Judgment may be rendered in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff.

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

*97 FOSTER, J.

This case was tried with the case of Haas vs. Williams, #45360. Without going into detail as to the evidence, the plaintiff claims that he was walking at the side of Haas and, since Haas was not well, was supporting him on one side, while Haas’ temyear old son was supporting him on his other side. Haas and his son, now twelve years old, both testify that the plaintiff was walking ahead of them two or three feet and that Haas was not being supported by either his son or by Cohen. Neither Haas nor his son nor any other witness testifies to seeing Cohen struck by the automobile of the defendant, or fall, or being on the ground. Cohen had some time before been injured in an automobile accident and had collected damages.

Cohen immediately after Haas was struck by the automo' bile started to get the number of the defendant’s automobile and to get the names of witnesses. Cohen gave contradictory evidence on other parts of his case. I give no credit to the testimony of Cohen where not corroborated. I find he failed to prove the essential allegations of his complaint by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Judgment may be rendered in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Conn. Super. Ct. 96, 4 Conn. Supp. 96, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-willman-connsuperct-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack