Stanford v. Hyde

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Stanford v. Hyde

87 A. 738, 87 Conn. 707, 1913 Conn. LEXIS 152

DecidedJuly 25, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A. 738 (Stanford v. Hyde) 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

Stanford v. Hyde, 87 A. 738, 87 Conn. 707, 1913 Conn. LEXIS 152 (Colo. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In the conflict of the testimony the jury might reasonably have found that the fall from the ladder was the cause of some injury to the plaintiff, and that if the shoulder was thereby dislocated the defendant ought in the exercise of reasonable care to have discovered it.

The most serious issue of fact in the case was whether one of the injuries suffered by the fall was a dislocation of the shoulder. There was evidence before the jury from which the existence or nonexistence of this fact might have been found. We cannot hold that the jury in finding its existence acted so unreasonably as to warrant us in setting aside the verdict. Steinert v. Whitcomb, 84 Conn. 262, 263, 79 Atl. 675. Nor can we hold that the damages assessed by the jury were so excessive that the verdict ought for that reason to be set aside, when the special damages might have been *708 found to be $478, and the injury to have resulted in an appreciably permanent impairment of the shoulder affecting the plaintiff’s pursuit of his trade. The evidence excluded assigned as error was at the most harmless error.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

In the conflict of the testimony the jury might reasonably have found that the fall from the ladder was the cause of some injury to the plaintiff, and that if the shoulder was thereby dislocated the defendant ought in the exercise of reasonable care to have discovered it.

The most serious issue of fact in the case was whether one of the injuries suffered by the fall was a dislocation of the shoulder. There was evidence before the jury from which the existence or nonexistence of this fact might have been found. We cannot hold that the jury in finding its existence acted so unreasonably as to warrant us in setting aside the verdict. Steinert v. Whitcomb, 84 Conn. 262, 263, 79 Atl. 675. Nor can we hold that the damages assessed by the jury were so excessive that the verdict ought for that reason to be set aside, when the special damages might have been *708 found to be $478, and the injury to have resulted in an appreciably permanent impairment of the shoulder affecting the plaintiff’s pursuit of his trade. The evidence excluded assigned as error was at the most harmless error.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A. 738, 87 Conn. 707, 1913 Conn. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanford-v-hyde-conn-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack