Salvietti v. Gormley

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Salvietti v. Gormley

134 A. 171, 104 Conn. 741, 1926 Conn. LEXIS 155

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedMay 7, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A. 171 (Salvietti v. Gormley) 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

Salvietti v. Gormley, 134 A. 171, 104 Conn. 741, 1926 Conn. LEXIS 155 (Colo. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

At defendant’s request, the plaintiff, a boy of fourteen, was helping him gather apples by *742 catching the apples, which defendant, who had climbed the tree, threw to him, and by placing them in a basket. The act of negligence set up in the complaint was either the throwing by the defendant of an apple without having given the plaintiff warning, as he had promised to do, that he was to throw the apple, or the throwing of it when defendant ought to have known the plaintiff was not ready to catch it. The court granted a motion for a nonsuit upon the ground that no reasonable inference could be drawn from the evidence that the defendant threw the apple. The court correctly stated the rule of law governing the granting of a motion for a nonsuit, but, as we think, incorrectly applied the rule to the facts in evidence. Weighing the evidence in the light of our rule, that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff must be assumed to be true, and then drawing every favorable inference of fact that might be reasonably drawn from it, the-jury might reasonably have found that the defendant threw the apple which injured the plaintiff. Cook v. Morris, 66 Conn. 196, 33 Atl. 949; Fritz v. Gaudet, 101 Conn. 52, 124 Atl. 841; Colvin v. Delaney, 101 Conn. 73, 79, 124 Atl. 841.

There is error and a new trial is ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

At defendant’s request, the plaintiff, a boy of fourteen, was helping him gather apples by *742 catching the apples, which defendant, who had climbed the tree, threw to him, and by placing them in a basket. The act of negligence set up in the complaint was either the throwing by the defendant of an apple without having given the plaintiff warning, as he had promised to do, that he was to throw the apple, or the throwing of it when defendant ought to have known the plaintiff was not ready to catch it. The court granted a motion for a nonsuit upon the ground that no reasonable inference could be drawn from the evidence that the defendant threw the apple. The court correctly stated the rule of law governing the granting of a motion for a nonsuit, but, as we think, incorrectly applied the rule to the facts in evidence. Weighing the evidence in the light of our rule, that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff must be assumed to be true, and then drawing every favorable inference of fact that might be reasonably drawn from it, the-jury might reasonably have found that the defendant threw the apple which injured the plaintiff. Cook v. Morris, 66 Conn. 196, 33 Atl. 949; Fritz v. Gaudet, 101 Conn. 52, 124 Atl. 841; Colvin v. Delaney, 101 Conn. 73, 79, 124 Atl. 841.

There is error and a new trial is ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A. 171, 104 Conn. 741, 1926 Conn. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salvietti-v-gormley-conn-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack