From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCleary v. Rothenberg

Supreme Court of Connecticut Third Judicial District, New Haven, June Term, 1930
Jul 9, 1930
151 A. 164 (Conn. 1930)

Opinion

Argued June 10th, 1930

Decided July 9th, 1930.

ACTION to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County and tried to the jury before John Rufus Booth, J.; judgment for the plaintiffs and appeal by the defendant. No error.

Lorin W. Willis, with whom, on the brief, was George N. Foster, for the appellant (defendant).

Samuel Reich, with whom was Edward H. Nussenfeld, for the appellee (plaintiff McCleary).

Raymond E. Baldwin, for the appellee (State of Connecticut), joined in the brief, but did not argue the cause.


This action arose as a result of a collision on a public highway between defendant's automobile and plaintiff's motorcycle while the plaintiff was patrolling the highway in the course of his duty as a State policeman. The defendant's claim that the plaintiff has not supported the burden of either showing defendant's negligence or plaintiff's lack of contributory negligence rests very largely upon his contention that the physical facts support the evidence introduced by the defendant and disprove that offered by the plaintiff. We do not share the confidence of the defendant in the inevitableness of the physical facts as determinative of the issues involved. As we read the evidence these issues were plainly for the jury to settle upon the conflict in the evidence before it.

Error is also assigned in the charge to the jury upon the refusal of the court to accept the verdict for $5000 and in returning the jury to a further consideration of the verdict. The court did not exercise its discretion unreasonably in directing the jury to further consider "whether the amount of damages is inadequate in view of the evidence concerning the character of the injuries." The court expressly stated that it did not "intend to indicate any amount" although it stated with definiteness and clearness its opinion that the verdict rendered was inadequate and referred the jury to facts in evidence supporting this view. The physical injuries were severe and some apparently permanent, while the special damages, uncontradicted, amounted to upward of $2000. We think the court exercised its discretion wisely in returning the jury to a further consideration of the damages. The verdict finally returned was for $8500 which the trial court accepted and subsequently refused to set aside. Upon the evidence this verdict was not excessive.


Summaries of

McCleary v. Rothenberg

Supreme Court of Connecticut Third Judicial District, New Haven, June Term, 1930
Jul 9, 1930
151 A. 164 (Conn. 1930)
Case details for

McCleary v. Rothenberg

Case Details

Full title:JOHN McCLEARY ET AL. vs. LOUIS H. ROTHENBERG

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut Third Judicial District, New Haven, June Term, 1930

Date published: Jul 9, 1930

Citations

151 A. 164 (Conn. 1930)
151 A. 164

Citing Cases

Zint v. Wheeler

The decedent was entitled to assume that no car would be turned into his path from his left without any…

Barbieri v. Pandiscio

On the other hand, if the verdict first returned is so clearly unreasonable that the trial court would be…