Gorman v. City of New Haven

Connecticut Superior Court

Gorman v. City of New Haven

3 Conn. Super. Ct. 176, 3 Conn. Supp. 176, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 160

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 9, 1935

DocketFile #46895

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Conn. Super. Ct. 176 (Gorman v. City of New Haven) 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

Gorman v. City of New Haven, 3 Conn. Super. Ct. 176, 3 Conn. Supp. 176, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 160 (Colo. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

CORNELL, J.

That the plaintiff sustained certain ’ injuries; on or about December 5, 1935, is apparent. That these were caused by such a violation of statutory duty on the part of the defendant as is alleged in the complaint is a fact, the burden of establishing which is, of course, essentially on the plaintiff.

*177 Aside from the proof of other elements of liability, the plaintiff was required, first of all, to establish the existence of a defect in the sidewalk and, likewise, that that particular condition was the proximate cause of her alleged fall.

There is substantial agreement in the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses of the condition which is claimed to have constituted a defect, its location, size, form, depth and other characteristics. All of these witnesses, however, are clearly connected by ties of friendship to the plaintiff and one by bonds of matrimony with her, recently acquired, but not divulged to the court until brought to its attention by plaintiff’s counsel who, too, was not aware of the circumstance until after plaintiff and her now husband had testified.

Although the section where the defect allegedly existed is a well populated one, and the sidewalk at the point, quite likely traversed by numerous pedestrians, no disinterested witness has appeared to support plaintiff’s claims as respects the existence or location of the alleged defect.

The plaintiff’s testimony on this essential point is disputed by evidence on the part of the defendant of very definite and convincing character, credence to which is lent by other circumstances which appear in the evidence.

Under such circumstances it cannot be found that plaintiff has successfully sustained the burden of proof.

Judgment for defendant.

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

CORNELL, J.

That the plaintiff sustained certain ’ injuries; on or about December 5, 1935, is apparent. That these were caused by such a violation of statutory duty on the part of the defendant as is alleged in the complaint is a fact, the burden of establishing which is, of course, essentially on the plaintiff.

*177 Aside from the proof of other elements of liability, the plaintiff was required, first of all, to establish the existence of a defect in the sidewalk and, likewise, that that particular condition was the proximate cause of her alleged fall.

There is substantial agreement in the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses of the condition which is claimed to have constituted a defect, its location, size, form, depth and other characteristics. All of these witnesses, however, are clearly connected by ties of friendship to the plaintiff and one by bonds of matrimony with her, recently acquired, but not divulged to the court until brought to its attention by plaintiff’s counsel who, too, was not aware of the circumstance until after plaintiff and her now husband had testified.

Although the section where the defect allegedly existed is a well populated one, and the sidewalk at the point, quite likely traversed by numerous pedestrians, no disinterested witness has appeared to support plaintiff’s claims as respects the existence or location of the alleged defect.

The plaintiff’s testimony on this essential point is disputed by evidence on the part of the defendant of very definite and convincing character, credence to which is lent by other circumstances which appear in the evidence.

Under such circumstances it cannot be found that plaintiff has successfully sustained the burden of proof.

Judgment for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Conn. Super. Ct. 176, 3 Conn. Supp. 176, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorman-v-city-of-new-haven-connsuperct-1935.