Menzie v. Kalmonowitz

76 Citing cases

  1. Bordonaro v. Senk

    109 Conn. 428 (Conn. 1929)   Cited 148 times
    In Bordonaro v. Senk, supra, the court said that: "Act or conduct in reckless disregard of the rights of others is improper or wrongful conduct, and constitutes wanton misconduct, evincing a reckless indifference to consequences to the life, or limb, or health, or reputation or property rights of another."

    Act or conduct in reckless disregard of the rights of others is improper or wrongful conduct and constitutes wanton misconduct, evincing a reckless indifference to consequences to the life, or limb, or health, or reputation or property rights of another. We define these terms in Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197 ( 139 A. 698) at page 199: "Wanton misconduct is more than negligence, more than gross negligence. It is such conduct as indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of action.

  2. Dubay v. Irish

    207 Conn. 518 (Conn. 1988)   Cited 570 times
    Noting that "[w]hile we have attempted to draw definitional distinctions between the terms wilful, wanton or reckless, in practice the three terms have been treated as meaning the same thing" and that these terms require "an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a situation where a high degree of danger is apparent"

    Wanton misconduct is reckless misconduct. Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 199, 139 A. 698 (1928). `It is such conduct as indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of the action.

  3. Batick v. Seymour

    186 Conn. 632 (Conn. 1982)   Cited 520 times
    Holding that court has duty to submit to jury no issue on which evidence would not reasonably support finding

    We are not convinced that this slip was so significant as to affect the outcome of the trial, but in reviewing the evidence we have concluded that it was insufficient to support a finding of wilful misconduct which would bar recovery by the plaintiff in his action for an absolute nuisance. "In nuisance of that order, the fault that bars recovery is fault so extreme as to be equivalent to invitation of injury or, at least, indifference to consequences." Hoffman v. Bristol, 113 Conn. 386, 393, 155 A. 499 (1931); see Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 199 — 200, 139 A. 698 (1928). The only evidence of "wilful misconduct" presented was that the plaintiff drank one and one-half cans of beer during a three and one-half hour fishing outing on the evening of the accident and that a police officer who came to the scene "detected a moderate odor of alcohol" on the plaintiff's breath.

  4. State v. Alterio

    154 Conn. 23 (Conn. 1966)   Cited 43 times
    Ruling that contributory negligence of the victim is no defense to charged mental state but is relevant only to the "issue of causation"

    Wilful misconduct is intentional misconduct, and wanton misconduct is reckless misconduct, which is the equivalent of wilful misconduct." Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 199, 139 A. 698. The jury could reasonably have concluded that the act of racing two automobiles, in itself a crime under General Statutes 14-224 (b), on a city street in the night season amounted to gross or wilful misconduct.

  5. Siesseger v. Puth

    239 N.W. 46 (Iowa 1931)   Cited 90 times
    In Siesseger v. Puth, 213 Iowa 164, 182, 239 N.W. 46, 54, one of the most frequently cited cases in our reports, we defined recklessness as implying "no care, coupled with disregard for consequences."

    Conduct indicating a reckless disregard of the rights of others is quite distinct in its characteristics from merely negligent conduct. It is conduct which indicates an indifference to the consequences of action and constitutes wanton misconduct. Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 187, 199, 139 A. 698; Bordonaro v. Senk, supra. Conduct arising from momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or from an error of judgment, does not indicate a reckless disregard of the rights of others. In her haste to get home before the threatened thunderstorm broke, the driver of this car turned from the street into the driveway without slackening her speed, with the result that the car failed to make the turn and mounted the curb.

  6. Ziman v. Whitley

    110 Conn. 108 (Conn. 1929)   Cited 68 times
    In Ziman v. Whitley, 110 Conn. 108, 115, 147 A. 370, we expressly pointed out that in an action where both negligence and wanton misconduct are alleged and there is a general verdict, an error as to one cause of action will not avail the appellant if there were none as to the other.

    Such a conclusion would determine the defendant's liability without regard to any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Nehring v. Connecticut Co., 86 Conn. 109, 122, 84 A. 301; Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 200, 139 A. 698. The appellant also complains of the charge of the trial court with reference to the claim of wanton misconduct.

  7. McCoy, Admr. v. Faulkenberg

    53 Ohio App. 98 (Ohio Ct. App. 1935)   Cited 8 times

    "Act or conduct in reckless disregard of the rights of others is improper or wrongful conduct and constitutes wanton misconduct, evincing a reckless indifference to consequences to the life, or limb, or health, or reputation or property rights of another. We define these terms in Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197 ( 139 A. 698) at page 199: 'Wanton misconduct is more than negligence, more than gross negligence. It is such conduct as indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of action.

  8. Dillman v. Allen-Warren

    2002 Ct. Sup. 9426 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002)

    He contends, however, that in light of two modern Supreme Court decision — Dubay v. Irish, 207 Conn. 518 (1988) and Elliot v.Waterbury, 245 Conn. 385 (1998) — the term "wilful and malicious" conduct has been merged with and redefined to include common-law reckless or wanton conduct, which "is the equivalent of wilful misconduct." Dubayv. Irish, supra, 207 Conn. at 533 n. 8 (quoting State v. Alterio, 154 Conn. 23, 25-26 (1966) and citing Menzie v. Kalmonowicz, 107 Conn. 197, 199 (1928)). Because common-law recklessness or wantonness does not require proof of intent to cause injury; id. the plaintiff insists that summary judgment must not be entered in this case for failure to plead or present competent evidence that the defendant caused his injuries while acting with such an intent.

  9. Bates v. McKeon

    650 F. Supp. 476 (D. Conn. 1986)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that the defendant's extreme actions while resisting arrest, amounting to intentional assault, could not have been foreseen by the police officer, rendering the Fireman's Rule inapplicable

    Wanton misconduct is reckless misconduct. Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 199, 139 A. 698 (1928). "It is such conduct as indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of the action."

  10. American Insurance Co. v. Saulnier

    242 F. Supp. 257 (D. Conn. 1965)   Cited 27 times
    In Saulnier, the court rejected the insurance company's argument for no coverage where the insured person—a thirteen-year old boy—had thrown a bottle into a pool with the intent to scare a girl, but had instead hit and injured another boy in the water.

    Some support for this view is found in Bordonaro, supra, 109 Conn. at 431-432, 147 A. at 137: "We define these terms in Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, at page 199, 139 A. 698, 699: "Wanton misconduct is more than neglience, more than gross negligence. It is such conduct as indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of action. Wilful misconduct is intentional misconduct, and wanton misconduct is reckless misconduct, which is the equivalent of wilful misconduct.