Kinderavich v. Palmer

Connecticut Superior Court

Kinderavich v. Palmer

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 423, 6 Conn. Supp. 423, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 159

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 31, 1938

DocketFile #54492

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 423 (Kinderavich v. Palmer) 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

Kinderavich v. Palmer, 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 423, 6 Conn. Supp. 423, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 159 (Colo. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

CORNELL, J.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was rendered unconscious as a result of the alleged collision. The defendants deny that the plaintiff received his injuries as a result of being struck by a train operated by them. Under these circumstances more liberality is justified in affording plaintiff access to material information in defendants’ exclusive power or control than would, otherwise, perhaps, be the case.

Other than paragraph 7, which is denied, the motion is granted, except that the defendants are not required to comply with it in the following respects: (1) with regard to interrogatory No. 4 defendant shall be required only to specify the trains passing through Shelton on the night of September 15, 1937, between the hours of 8:30 p.m. and 12:00 m.; (2) defendants need not say what the total length of cars drawn by locomotives OA4 and AOl, were. Paragraph 7 is denied because its answer is apparently dependent upon certain regulations which have been adopted, which may require interpretation.

To be complied with on or before November 12, 1938.

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

CORNELL, J.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was rendered unconscious as a result of the alleged collision. The defendants deny that the plaintiff received his injuries as a result of being struck by a train operated by them. Under these circumstances more liberality is justified in affording plaintiff access to material information in defendants’ exclusive power or control than would, otherwise, perhaps, be the case.

Other than paragraph 7, which is denied, the motion is granted, except that the defendants are not required to comply with it in the following respects: (1) with regard to interrogatory No. 4 defendant shall be required only to specify the trains passing through Shelton on the night of September 15, 1937, between the hours of 8:30 p.m. and 12:00 m.; (2) defendants need not say what the total length of cars drawn by locomotives OA4 and AOl, were. Paragraph 7 is denied because its answer is apparently dependent upon certain regulations which have been adopted, which may require interpretation.

To be complied with on or before November 12, 1938.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 423, 6 Conn. Supp. 423, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinderavich-v-palmer-connsuperct-1938.