Marguardt v. Elm City Trucking Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Marguardt v. Elm City Trucking Co.

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 267, 6 Conn. Supp. 267, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 113

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 21, 1938

DocketFile #52476

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 267 (Marguardt v. Elm City Trucking Co.) 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

Marguardt v. Elm City Trucking Co., 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 267, 6 Conn. Supp. 267, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 113 (Colo. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

McEVOY, J.

The memorandum of decision in the accompanying case, LeLasher vs. Elm City Trucking Company, Inc., supra, p. 264, is incorporated as this memorandum of decision, with this distinguishing comment. The plaintiff in this action was a passenger in the car driven by her daughter, Gladys M. LeLasher. Under these circumstances the plaintiff in this action is not chargeable with the negligence of the operator of the car in which she was riding, as it appears that she exer' *268 cised no control over the operation. At the same time her right of recovery is barred because it clearly appears, as is set out in the other opinion, that the injury was caused by the negligence of the operator of the car in which the plaintiff was riding and that, more important still, the collision was not caused by any negligence of the defendant. Under these circumstances no act or omission of the defendant materially contributed to or was a substantial factor in causing the collision in question.

Under these circumstances judgment must be entered for the defendant to recover its costs.

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

McEVOY, J.

The memorandum of decision in the accompanying case, LeLasher vs. Elm City Trucking Company, Inc., supra, p. 264, is incorporated as this memorandum of decision, with this distinguishing comment. The plaintiff in this action was a passenger in the car driven by her daughter, Gladys M. LeLasher. Under these circumstances the plaintiff in this action is not chargeable with the negligence of the operator of the car in which she was riding, as it appears that she exer' *268 cised no control over the operation. At the same time her right of recovery is barred because it clearly appears, as is set out in the other opinion, that the injury was caused by the negligence of the operator of the car in which the plaintiff was riding and that, more important still, the collision was not caused by any negligence of the defendant. Under these circumstances no act or omission of the defendant materially contributed to or was a substantial factor in causing the collision in question.

Under these circumstances judgment must be entered for the defendant to recover its costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 267, 6 Conn. Supp. 267, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marguardt-v-elm-city-trucking-co-connsuperct-1938.