Lonergan v. City of Waterbury

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Lonergan v. City of Waterbury

111 A. 836, 95 Conn. 574

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 5, 1920

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 111 A. 836 (Lonergan v. City of Waterbury) 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

Lonergan v. City of Waterbury, 111 A. 836, 95 Conn. 574 (Colo. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In view of the large special damages proved and the severity and permanence of the plaintiff’s injuries, the verdict was not excessive. On the testimony before us descriptive of the plaintiff’s fall and of her position after the fall, the jury might reasonably have found that she slipped on the steep grade next the gutter while in the exercise of due care. From the evidence as to the construction of this driveway it appears that the abnormally stéep slopé of the sidéwalk toward the gutter was the result of careless workmanship on the part of the unsupervised laborers who cut down the curb, rather than the intended result, of any plan adopted by the municipal authorities. Except as to the issues above noted, the court charged the jury substantially as requested by the defendant, and as to these points its charge was correct. The alleged error in commenting on the testimony of the plaintiff and her two daughters, is based upon supposed misstatements of some of the details of their testimony. The court properly charged the jury that they were the sole judges of the evidence and must trust to their own recollection *576 of it; and since the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, no reversible error was committed. Taken as a Whole, the charge was correct in law and sufficient for the instruction of the jury.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

In view of the large special damages proved and the severity and permanence of the plaintiff’s injuries, the verdict was not excessive. On the testimony before us descriptive of the plaintiff’s fall and of her position after the fall, the jury might reasonably have found that she slipped on the steep grade next the gutter while in the exercise of due care. From the evidence as to the construction of this driveway it appears that the abnormally stéep slopé of the sidéwalk toward the gutter was the result of careless workmanship on the part of the unsupervised laborers who cut down the curb, rather than the intended result, of any plan adopted by the municipal authorities. Except as to the issues above noted, the court charged the jury substantially as requested by the defendant, and as to these points its charge was correct. The alleged error in commenting on the testimony of the plaintiff and her two daughters, is based upon supposed misstatements of some of the details of their testimony. The court properly charged the jury that they were the sole judges of the evidence and must trust to their own recollection *576 of it; and since the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, no reversible error was committed. Taken as a Whole, the charge was correct in law and sufficient for the instruction of the jury.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A. 836, 95 Conn. 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lonergan-v-city-of-waterbury-conn-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack