Husted v. Refuse Removal Service

Connecticut Superior Court

Husted v. Refuse Removal Service

227 A.2d 433, 26 Conn. Super. Ct. 494, 26 Conn. Supp. 494, 1967 Conn. Super. LEXIS 182

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 14, 1967

DocketFile No. 110833

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 227 A.2d 433 (Husted v. Refuse Removal Service) 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

Husted v. Refuse Removal Service, 227 A.2d 433, 26 Conn. Super. Ct. 494, 26 Conn. Supp. 494, 1967 Conn. Super. LEXIS 182 (Colo. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

The special defense alleges that the plaintiff operator "was guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of her alleged injuries, in that she was not using or was not properly using a safety belt." Plaintiff claims, as a matter of law, that it has no bearing on the question of proximate *Page 495 cause. Defendant claims it presents a question of fact.

A conclusion of negligence and proximate cause is ordinarily one of mixed law and fact, involving the determination of the standard of care required and its application to the facts of the particular case. Davis v. Margolis, 107 Conn. 417, 420. It becomes a conclusion of law only when the mind of a fair and reasonable person could reach only one conclusion. If there is room for a reasonable disagreement, the question presented is one of fact.Johnson v. Pulidy, 116 Conn. 443, 445. Such is the case here.

Demurrer overruled.

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

The special defense alleges that the plaintiff operator "was guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of her alleged injuries, in that she was not using or was not properly using a safety belt." Plaintiff claims, as a matter of law, that it has no bearing on the question of proximate *Page 495 cause. Defendant claims it presents a question of fact.

A conclusion of negligence and proximate cause is ordinarily one of mixed law and fact, involving the determination of the standard of care required and its application to the facts of the particular case. Davis v. Margolis, 107 Conn. 417, 420. It becomes a conclusion of law only when the mind of a fair and reasonable person could reach only one conclusion. If there is room for a reasonable disagreement, the question presented is one of fact.Johnson v. Pulidy, 116 Conn. 443, 445. Such is the case here.

Demurrer overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.2d 433, 26 Conn. Super. Ct. 494, 26 Conn. Supp. 494, 1967 Conn. Super. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/husted-v-refuse-removal-service-connsuperct-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack