DeLucco v. Mott's Super Markets, Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

DeLucco v. Mott's Super Markets, Inc.

259 A.2d 646, 158 Conn. 615

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJune 17, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.2d 646 (DeLucco v. Mott's Super Markets, Inc.) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.2d 646, 158 Conn. 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delucco-v-motts-super-markets-inc-conn-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack