Fratzel v. Fratzel

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Fratzel v. Fratzel

236 A.2d 83, 155 Conn. 699

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedNovember 29, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 236 A.2d 83 (Fratzel v. Fratzel) 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

Fratzel v. Fratzel, 236 A.2d 83, 155 Conn. 699 (Colo. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action against the named defendant and Margaret and Nicholas P. G-alotti to recover damages for per[700]*700sonal injuries sustained on June 13, 1964, when an automobile driven by the named defendant in which the plaintiff was a passenger was struck from the rear by an automobile owned by Margaret Gfalotti and driven by Nicholas P. Gfalotti. The case was tried to the court, which concluded that the collision was caused by the negligence of both operators, and it rendered judgment against all the defendants. The named defendant alone has appealed.

We have examined the record and have concluded that the named defendant is not entitled to the changes in the finding requested by him and that the court could reasonably have concluded that he was negligent and that his negligence, as well as the negligence of Gfalotti, was a proximate cause of the collision, which resulted in injuries to the plaintiff.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action against the named defendant and Margaret and Nicholas P. G-alotti to recover damages for per[700]*700sonal injuries sustained on June 13, 1964, when an automobile driven by the named defendant in which the plaintiff was a passenger was struck from the rear by an automobile owned by Margaret Gfalotti and driven by Nicholas P. Gfalotti. The case was tried to the court, which concluded that the collision was caused by the negligence of both operators, and it rendered judgment against all the defendants. The named defendant alone has appealed.

We have examined the record and have concluded that the named defendant is not entitled to the changes in the finding requested by him and that the court could reasonably have concluded that he was negligent and that his negligence, as well as the negligence of Gfalotti, was a proximate cause of the collision, which resulted in injuries to the plaintiff.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.2d 83, 155 Conn. 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fratzel-v-fratzel-conn-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack