Eustace v. Adley Express Co.

1 Conn. Super. Ct. 58
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided March 6, 1935·No. File No. 44012·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The violation of the rules of the road by the defendant Murtherspauch in this case was the result simply of inadvertence on his part. On the evidence it was simply a matter of negligence and was not a deliberate violation of the law or even recklessness.

The imposition of the penalty of double or treble damages should be reserved for cases which involve offenses more serious than simple negligence. Such a penalty should be imposed only where the violation of the rules of the road has been deliberate or at least under conditions which indicate that the defendant was conducting himself with reckless disregard of the rights of others.

The motion to double or treble the damages is denied.

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

Eustace v. Adley Express Co., 1 Conn. Super. Ct. 58 (Colo. Ct. App. 1935).

1 Conn. Super. Ct. 58 (Eustace v. Adley Express Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Camp v. Planning Zoning Commission, No. Cv95 0319318s (Oct. 13, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 11786 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Slater v. Harrak, No. 125316 (Jul. 13, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 8155 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Cheneski v. Barber, No. 30 70 83 (Feb. 7, 1992)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1512 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1992)
Bishop v. Kelly
539 A.2d 108 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1988)
Jack v. Scanlon
495 A.2d 1084 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1985)
Goldfarb v. Bragg
475 A.2d 346 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1983)