Lubitz v. Wells

113 A.2d 147, 19 Conn. Super. Ct. 322, 19 Conn. Supp. 322, 1955 Conn. Super. LEXIS 80
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedMarch 23, 1955
DocketFile 22595
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 113 A.2d 147 (Lubitz v. Wells) 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
Lubitz v. Wells, 113 A.2d 147, 19 Conn. Super. Ct. 322, 19 Conn. Supp. 322, 1955 Conn. Super. LEXIS 80 (Colo. Ct. App. 1955).

Opinion

Troland, J.

The complaint alleges that James Wells was the owner of a golf club and that he left it for some time lying on the ground in the backyard of his home. That thereafter his son, the defendant James Wells, Jr., aged eleven years, while playing in the yard with the plaintiff, Judith Lubitz, aged nine years, picked up the golf club and proceeded to swing at a stone lying on the ground. In swinging the golf club, James Wells, Jr., caused the club to strike the plaintiff about the jaw and chin.

Negligence alleged against the young Wells boy is that he failed to warn his little playmate of his intention to swing the club and that he did swing the club when he knew she was in a position of danger.

In an attempt to hold the boy’s father, James Wells, liable for his son’s action, it is alleged that James Wells was negligent because although he knew the golf club was on the ground in his backyard and that his children would play with it, and that although he knew or “should have known” that *323 the negligent nse of the golf club by children would cause injury to a child, he neglected to remove the golf club from the backyard or to caution James Wells, Jr., against the use of the same.

The demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint to state a cause of action or to support a judgment against the father, James Wells.

It would hardly be good sense to hold that this golf club is so obviously and intrinsically dangerous that it is negligence to leave it lying on the ground in the yard. The father cannot be held liable on the allegations of this complaint. Goldberger v. David Roberts Corporation, 139 Conn. 629; Wood v. O’Neil, 90 Conn. 497-500.

The demurrer is sustained.

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

Related

Geter v. Amrani, No. Cv92 0293856s (Jun. 1, 1993)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 5315 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1993)
Brewster v. Rankins
600 N.E.2d 154 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1992)
Jones v. Izzo
143 A.2d 460 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 A.2d 147, 19 Conn. Super. Ct. 322, 19 Conn. Supp. 322, 1955 Conn. Super. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lubitz-v-wells-connsuperct-1955.