Wueppesahl v. Connecticut Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Wueppesahl v. Connecticut Co.

89 A. 166, 87 Conn. 710

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 29, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 89 A. 166 (Wueppesahl v. Connecticut Co.) 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

Wueppesahl v. Connecticut Co., 89 A. 166, 87 Conn. 710 (Colo. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

*711 Per Curiam.

The injuries for which recovery is sought were received while the plaintiff’s son was driving the plaintiff’s horse and wagon, and were occasioned by a collision between the defendant’s trolley-car and the wagon. Upon the evidence the jury could not reasonably have found that the son was free from contributory negligence, and the situation is not one in which the doctrine of the last clear chance can be successfully invoked. The verdict for the defendant was, therefore, properly directed.

There is no error.

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

*711 Per Curiam.

The injuries for which recovery is sought were received while the plaintiff’s son was driving the plaintiff’s horse and wagon, and were occasioned by a collision between the defendant’s trolley-car and the wagon. Upon the evidence the jury could not reasonably have found that the son was free from contributory negligence, and the situation is not one in which the doctrine of the last clear chance can be successfully invoked. The verdict for the defendant was, therefore, properly directed.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A. 166, 87 Conn. 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wueppesahl-v-connecticut-co-conn-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack