Great American Ins. v. American Rental Ctrs., No. 111315 (Sep. 3, 1993)

Connecticut Superior Court

Great American Ins. v. American Rental Ctrs., No. 111315 (Sep. 3, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8023

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 3, 1993

DocketNo. 111315

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8023 (Great American Ins. v. American Rental Ctrs., No. 111315 (Sep. 3, 1993)) 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

Great American Ins. v. American Rental Ctrs., No. 111315 (Sep. 3, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8023 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff, Great American, here seeks damages arising out of damages to its insured's grinding machine for which it paid a loss claim and was subrogated.

The court finds the plaintiff has proven by its burden of proof that the defendant was negligent in renting the insured a defective tail lift. Hartmann v. Black Decker Mfg. Co.,16 Conn. App. 1. As a result, the insured's newly purchased surface grinding machine was damaged to the extent of $2,750.00.

The defendants' claims of waiver of liability because of the fine print of the contract are unavailing under the circumstances. See 6 Williston Contracts (Rev. Ed.) 1763A; Rodriguez v. Gilbertis, 33 Conn. Sup. 582. If the presumption of damage caused by the bailee to bailed property applies here, it has been here over some by the plaintiff's evidence demonstrating CT Page 8024 the tail lift collapsed because the lift hinge pin was not welded in place when the lift was used to carry the grinding machine.

Accordingly, judgment may enter for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,750.

McDONALD, J.

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff, Great American, here seeks damages arising out of damages to its insured's grinding machine for which it paid a loss claim and was subrogated.

The court finds the plaintiff has proven by its burden of proof that the defendant was negligent in renting the insured a defective tail lift. Hartmann v. Black Decker Mfg. Co.,16 Conn. App. 1. As a result, the insured's newly purchased surface grinding machine was damaged to the extent of $2,750.00.

The defendants' claims of waiver of liability because of the fine print of the contract are unavailing under the circumstances. See 6 Williston Contracts (Rev. Ed.) 1763A; Rodriguez v. Gilbertis, 33 Conn. Sup. 582. If the presumption of damage caused by the bailee to bailed property applies here, it has been here over some by the plaintiff's evidence demonstrating CT Page 8024 the tail lift collapsed because the lift hinge pin was not welded in place when the lift was used to carry the grinding machine.

Accordingly, judgment may enter for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,750.

McDONALD, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-american-ins-v-american-rental-ctrs-no-111315-sep-3-1993-connsuperct-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack