Duff v. Husted

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Duff v. Husted

111 A. 186, 95 Conn. 206, 1920 Conn. LEXIS 82

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJuly 20, 1920

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 111 A. 186 (Duff v. Husted) 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

Duff v. Husted, 111 A. 186, 95 Conn. 206, 1920 Conn. LEXIS 82 (Colo. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In determining whether the plaintiff’s evidence should have been submitted to the jury, it is to be treated in the most favorable aspect to his case of which it is reasonably susceptible. So tested, the admission in the answer that the plaintiff’s decedent "died on the day he is said to have received his injuries, coupled with the testimony as to their nature and extent, would have warranted the inference that death resulted from the injuries, while the boy’s age — six years — left it exclusively for the jury to say whether contributory negligence was attributable to him. Lynch v. Shearer, 83 Conn. 73, 75 Atl. 88; Rohloff v. Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 76 Conn. 689, 58 Atl. 5.

Whether or not the defendant’s conduct was negligent rested upon these facts: His automobile, “going fast,” was driven without warning signal of any kind and, with no slackening of its speed, toward the place where seven or eight young boys were playing on the edge of the traveled road, shouting, in motion, and noisily absorbed in and intent upon their game, and came into fatal collision with the plaintiff’s decedent, who was one of the boys so engaged. We cannot say that in the situation so presented, and with the question *208 of contributory negligence wholly eliminated by the age of the boy, the jury might not have found for the plaintiff.

There is error and a new trial is ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

In determining whether the plaintiff’s evidence should have been submitted to the jury, it is to be treated in the most favorable aspect to his case of which it is reasonably susceptible. So tested, the admission in the answer that the plaintiff’s decedent "died on the day he is said to have received his injuries, coupled with the testimony as to their nature and extent, would have warranted the inference that death resulted from the injuries, while the boy’s age — six years — left it exclusively for the jury to say whether contributory negligence was attributable to him. Lynch v. Shearer, 83 Conn. 73, 75 Atl. 88; Rohloff v. Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 76 Conn. 689, 58 Atl. 5.

Whether or not the defendant’s conduct was negligent rested upon these facts: His automobile, “going fast,” was driven without warning signal of any kind and, with no slackening of its speed, toward the place where seven or eight young boys were playing on the edge of the traveled road, shouting, in motion, and noisily absorbed in and intent upon their game, and came into fatal collision with the plaintiff’s decedent, who was one of the boys so engaged. We cannot say that in the situation so presented, and with the question *208 of contributory negligence wholly eliminated by the age of the boy, the jury might not have found for the plaintiff.

There is error and a new trial is ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A. 186, 95 Conn. 206, 1920 Conn. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duff-v-husted-conn-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack