DeLucco v. Mott's Super Markets, Inc.

259 A.2d 646, 158 Conn. 615
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided June 17, 1969·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question of negligence on the part of the defendant and the question of contributory negligence on the part of the named plaintiff presented factual issues for the jury to determine. The verdict was a result which could reasonably have been reached on a permissible view of the evidence. Bonomo v. Capitol City Lumber Co., 154 Conn. 714, 228 A.2d 501. The court, therefore, did not err in refusing to set it aside. Hemmings v. Weinstein, 151 Conn. 502, 505, 199 A.2d 687.

There is no error.

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

DeLucco v. Mott's Super Markets, Inc., 259 A.2d 646, 158 Conn. 615 (Colo. 1969).

259 A.2d 646 (DeLucco v. Mott's Super Markets, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DeMotses v. Leonard Schwartz Nissan, Inc.
578 A.2d 144 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1990)