From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mascagna v. Derby

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Nov 3, 1937
194 A. 728 (Conn. 1937)

Summary

In Mascagna v. Derby, 123 Conn. 684, 192 A. 728, a notice stating that the plaintiff "was taken in the ambulance" to a certain hospital and was under the care of a physician but "did not know the fuel extent of my injuries" was held not to comply with the statute.

Summary of this case from Main v. Town of North Stonington

Opinion

Argued October 15th, 1937

Decided November 3d 1937.

ACTION to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by ice and snow on a sidewalk, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the court, John Rufus Booth, J.; judgment of nonsuit, from which the plaintiff appealed. No error.

Harry M. French, with whom, on the brief, was Albert W. Cretella, for the appellant (plaintiff).

William F. Healey, for the appellee (named defendant).


The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages resulting from a fall upon the sidewalk of the defendant city which she claimed to be defective. The trial court ordered a nonsuit upon the ground that the notice of the injury served upon the city did not meet the requirements of § 1420 of the General Statutes. The notice stated the time and place where the plaintiff fell and then continued: "I was taken in the ambulance to the Griffin Hospital where I am now. I am under the care of Dr. Parlato and at present do not know the full extent of my injuries." In Marino v. East Haven, 120 Conn. 577, 182 A. 225, we had before us a notice which merely stated that the plaintiff "fell and was injured" at the time and place where the accident occurred. We held that this did not comply with the statute which requires, among other things, a general description of the injury and that the saving clause at the end of the statute with reference to an "inaccuracy in describing the injury" would not apply because the notice failed to give any description of it. The present case cannot be distinguished and the trial court was right in granting the nonsuit.


Summaries of

Mascagna v. Derby

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Nov 3, 1937
194 A. 728 (Conn. 1937)

In Mascagna v. Derby, 123 Conn. 684, 192 A. 728, a notice stating that the plaintiff "was taken in the ambulance" to a certain hospital and was under the care of a physician but "did not know the fuel extent of my injuries" was held not to comply with the statute.

Summary of this case from Main v. Town of North Stonington

In Mascagna v. City of Derby, 123 Conn. 684, 685 (1937), the court held that the plaintiff's assertions that she "was taken in an ambulance" to a hospital, was under a physicians care, but did "not know the full extent" of her injuries did not meet the requirements of the statute.

Summary of this case from Quarello v. City of Meriden

In Mascagna v. Derby, 123 Conn. 684, 685 (1937) notice stating that the plaintiff "was taken in the ambulance" and did not know the full extent of the injuries sustained was held to not comply with the statute which required a general description of the injury. Notice stating that the plaintiff "got hurt" was likewise held to be inadequate. Main v. North Stonington, 127 Conn. 711, 712 (1940).

Summary of this case from Blake v. Santoro
Case details for

Mascagna v. Derby

Case Details

Full title:PHILOMENA MASCAGNA v. CITY OF DERBY ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Nov 3, 1937

Citations

194 A. 728 (Conn. 1937)
194 A. 728

Citing Cases

Wheeler v. Town of Granby

This is the sum total of any attempt to describe the Plaintiff's injuries and property damage. The following…

Vestutu v. Burns

The trier of fact can reasonably determine this satisfies the statutory requirement that the claimant furnish…