Klauberg v. Crowe Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Klauberg v. Crowe Co., Inc.

138 A. 433, 106 Conn. 732, 1927 Conn. LEXIS 175

DecidedJuly 25, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A. 433 (Klauberg v. Crowe Co., Inc.) 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

Klauberg v. Crowe Co., Inc., 138 A. 433, 106 Conn. 732, 1927 Conn. LEXIS 175 (Colo. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff sues to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant. The jury rendered its verdict in favor of the defendant upon its counterclaim, which the trial court set aside on the ground that the reckless operation by the driver of defendant’s truck was the proximate cause of the collision with plaintiff’s car, and that the proof of defendant’s damages was insufficient to support the verdict. There was a clear conflict in the evidence between the plaintiffs and defendant^ claims as to how the collision occurred. Whether the negligence of the servant of defendant materially contributed to the damage done to *733 defendant’s truck was a fair question of fact for the jury to resolve. The proof of the damage to defendant’s truck, together with interest thereon in amount, was sufficient to support the verdict.

There is error; the Superior Court is directed to enter its judgment upon the verdict.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff sues to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant. The jury rendered its verdict in favor of the defendant upon its counterclaim, which the trial court set aside on the ground that the reckless operation by the driver of defendant’s truck was the proximate cause of the collision with plaintiff’s car, and that the proof of defendant’s damages was insufficient to support the verdict. There was a clear conflict in the evidence between the plaintiffs and defendant^ claims as to how the collision occurred. Whether the negligence of the servant of defendant materially contributed to the damage done to *733 defendant’s truck was a fair question of fact for the jury to resolve. The proof of the damage to defendant’s truck, together with interest thereon in amount, was sufficient to support the verdict.

There is error; the Superior Court is directed to enter its judgment upon the verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A. 433, 106 Conn. 732, 1927 Conn. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klauberg-v-crowe-co-inc-conn-1927.