Korzon v. McCabe

158 A. 888, 114 Conn. 725
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedFebruary 5, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 A. 888 (Korzon v. McCabe) 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
Korzon v. McCabe, 158 A. 888, 114 Conn. 725 (Colo. 1932).

Opinion

*726 Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, a ten year old boy, was injured by stumbling over a stone block left in the rear of the premises where he lived with his parents. The complaint named as defendants the appellant and also John J. McCabe and Rose McCabe, the owners of the premises. The appellant presses only two grounds of appeal. One is that, although the basis of action was the alleged negligence of the defendant, there is no finding that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. The complaint alleged want of such negligence and the answer put this in issue. The finding does not show that at the trial any claim of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff was made. We have no occasion to take cognizance of such a claim now. Stein v. Davidson, 110 Conn. 4, 8, 147 Atl. 1. The judgment found all the issues for the plaintiff against the appellant and under the circumstances of this case this is sufficient. Foster v. Morris, 91 Conn. 378, 99 Atl. 1067. The other ground of appeal urged is that the facts found were not supported by the allegations of the complaint, in so far as the trial court found that the appellant placed the stone upon the premises in the performance of a contract he had with the city of New Britain to build a retaining wall made necessary by certain improvements to the street in front of the premises. The complaint alleged that the appellant was “a contractor and was an agent or employee of” the defendants McCabe. The finding was within the very general allegation that the appellant was a contractor and the fact that he was not the agent or employee of the McCabes could not affect his liability for his own negligence.

There is no error.

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

Related

Goldberg v. Lumber Mutual Casualty Insurance
77 N.E.2d 131 (New York Court of Appeals, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
158 A. 888, 114 Conn. 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/korzon-v-mccabe-conn-1932.