From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pace v. Clark, Hall Peck

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Nov 12, 1974
355 A.2d 243 (Conn. 1974)

Opinion

Argued October 2, 1974

Decision released November 12, 1974

Action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the named defendant, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, where the named defendant's motion for summary judgment on its third-party complaint against the third-party defendant was denied; motion by the third-party defendant for a separate trial of the third-party action was granted; and the issues were tried to the jury before Sidor, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendant. Error; judgment directed.

David M. Reilly, Jr., for the appellant (named defendant and third-party plaintiff).

Stanley A. Jacobs, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Bruce W. Thompson, for the appellee (third-party defendant).


The plaintiff brought this action seeking damages for injuries which she alleged were sustained as a result of the negligence of the named defendant when she fell leaving the ladies' room at the office of that defendant. From the judgment rendered on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the named defendant appealed, claiming, among other assignments of error, that the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in refusing to set aside the verdict for lack of evidence on the issue of liability, there being no proof that any negligence on its part was a proximate cause of the injuries which the plaintiff alleged.

The record discloses that the elderly plaintiff failed to offer any evidence as to what caused her to fall. At the trial, she was unable to recall the circumstances of the accident and her only explanation of the fall was contained in her deposition which, over objection, was read to the jury. In response to the direct question, "What made you fall?" her reply was, "I was coming out of the bathroom, anybody can happen — so I just fell on the steps, and I fell."

In the absence of any evidence which would justify the jury in finding that the defendant was negligent or, assuming they could reasonably and logically find that the defendant was negligent, that that negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, the court should have granted the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.


Summaries of

Pace v. Clark, Hall Peck

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Nov 12, 1974
355 A.2d 243 (Conn. 1974)
Case details for

Pace v. Clark, Hall Peck

Case Details

Full title:ALFONCINO PACE v. CLARK, HALL AND PECK ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Nov 12, 1974

Citations

355 A.2d 243 (Conn. 1974)
355 A.2d 243

Citing Cases

Sherwood v. Novak

Where the plaintiffs have failed to fulfill that burden of proof, judgment should enter finding the issues…

Paige v. Saint Andrew's Roman Catholic Church Corp.

Although the factual predicates in those cases may not always be obvious, suffice it to say that, unlike the…