Treadwell v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Treadwell v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 207, 6 Conn. Supp. 207, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 97

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 28, 1938

DocketFile #49000

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 207 (Treadwell v. Connecticut Light & Power 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

Treadwell v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 207, 6 Conn. Supp. 207, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 97 (Colo. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

DICKENSON, J.

There is evidence that the Frigidaire was operated by a motor and had a control by which the cold could be regulated, that the control lever was out of order and shifted overnight, freezing the food. The plaintiff’s claim was that this and the fact that the motor ran at long intervals with few intervals of rest between would account for an overheating of the motor and setting fire to the floor under or about the Frigidaire, and taken in connection with testimony that the Frigidaire itself was afire, fire was all about it and there was no other apparent cause for the fire, justified the jury in its conclusion.

The defendant offered evidence that the Frigidaire was of steel construction and could not get afire; that various checks, prevented the motor from overheating and that had it overheated it could not have created heat that would cause the fire.

Where it appears the jury must have given credence to evidence “which is irreconcilable with, for example, the laws of’ mechanics” in order to arrive at their verdict it should be set aside. Anderson vs. Colucci, 119 Conn. 241, 245. The evidence in the instant case is indeed irreconcilable with the laws. *208 of mechanics if the facts as given by the defendant’s experts are accepted as indisputable. But-the jury obviously refused to accept them as such and the question is therefore one of fact that may not be disturbed by this Court.

The motion is denied.

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

DICKENSON, J.

There is evidence that the Frigidaire was operated by a motor and had a control by which the cold could be regulated, that the control lever was out of order and shifted overnight, freezing the food. The plaintiff’s claim was that this and the fact that the motor ran at long intervals with few intervals of rest between would account for an overheating of the motor and setting fire to the floor under or about the Frigidaire, and taken in connection with testimony that the Frigidaire itself was afire, fire was all about it and there was no other apparent cause for the fire, justified the jury in its conclusion.

The defendant offered evidence that the Frigidaire was of steel construction and could not get afire; that various checks, prevented the motor from overheating and that had it overheated it could not have created heat that would cause the fire.

Where it appears the jury must have given credence to evidence “which is irreconcilable with, for example, the laws of’ mechanics” in order to arrive at their verdict it should be set aside. Anderson vs. Colucci, 119 Conn. 241, 245. The evidence in the instant case is indeed irreconcilable with the laws. *208 of mechanics if the facts as given by the defendant’s experts are accepted as indisputable. But-the jury obviously refused to accept them as such and the question is therefore one of fact that may not be disturbed by this Court.

The motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 207, 6 Conn. Supp. 207, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treadwell-v-connecticut-light-power-co-connsuperct-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack