Francisco v. Dinkler

Connecticut Superior Court

Francisco v. Dinkler

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 293, 5 Conn. Supp. 293, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 137

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 6, 1937

DocketFile #52270

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 293 (Francisco v. Dinkler) 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

Francisco v. Dinkler, 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 293, 5 Conn. Supp. 293, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 137 (Colo. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

WYNNE, J.

Admittedly the only question involved in the present motion concerns the claimed inadequacy of the amount allowed by the jury. The plaintiff relied entirely upon the testimony of one physician to describe her injuries and to express an opinion as to her disability. A careful review of the testimony of this witness indicates that he was far from being didactic even when expressing the opinion most favor' able to the plaintiff. It is true that he expressed his feeling as to the extent of plaintiff’s injuries and his confidence that her complaints were made in good faith but his description of the relatively simple injuries which confined the plaintiff to the hospital and her absence of complaint as to any back injury at the time of her discharge could well have been taken by the jury as defining the extent of the injuries from the accident in question. The doctor had to concede that he had seen his patient on a prior occasion for a back strain and that she was also suffering from a thyroid condition which eventually re' suited in her going to Boston for an operation. The docto: was too frank and too honest intellectually to go further than express what he termed a “feeling”. The jury had the urn doubted right to accept as proven that part of the doctor’s story that dealt solely with demonstrable results of the plain' tiff’s injuries. The court has no right to substitute his judg' ment for that of the jury and could only properly act if there were no evidence constituting a legal basis for the jury’s conelusion. There is no such situation present and the motion to set aside the verdict must be denied.

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

WYNNE, J.

Admittedly the only question involved in the present motion concerns the claimed inadequacy of the amount allowed by the jury. The plaintiff relied entirely upon the testimony of one physician to describe her injuries and to express an opinion as to her disability. A careful review of the testimony of this witness indicates that he was far from being didactic even when expressing the opinion most favor' able to the plaintiff. It is true that he expressed his feeling as to the extent of plaintiff’s injuries and his confidence that her complaints were made in good faith but his description of the relatively simple injuries which confined the plaintiff to the hospital and her absence of complaint as to any back injury at the time of her discharge could well have been taken by the jury as defining the extent of the injuries from the accident in question. The doctor had to concede that he had seen his patient on a prior occasion for a back strain and that she was also suffering from a thyroid condition which eventually re' suited in her going to Boston for an operation. The docto: was too frank and too honest intellectually to go further than express what he termed a “feeling”. The jury had the urn doubted right to accept as proven that part of the doctor’s story that dealt solely with demonstrable results of the plain' tiff’s injuries. The court has no right to substitute his judg' ment for that of the jury and could only properly act if there were no evidence constituting a legal basis for the jury’s conelusion. There is no such situation present and the motion to set aside the verdict must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 293, 5 Conn. Supp. 293, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francisco-v-dinkler-connsuperct-1937.