Petrizzo v. the Connecticut Company

Full title: FRANCES PETRIZZO vs. THE CONNECTICUT COMPANY

Court: Superior Court Hartford County

Date published: Jun 12, 1937

5 Conn. Supp. 161 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1937)

Opinion

File No. 55265

Edward S. Pomerantz, Attorney for the Plaintiff.

Day, Berry Howard, Attorneys for the Defendant.

The plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries suffered when riding as a passenger in the defendant's trolley car, which car had caught on fire. In the instant motion she claims "that it is necessary for her to inspect and examine said trolley car" and "moves for permission to inspect and examine said trolley car". Held: The Superior Court has no power to order the defendant to permit the plaintiff to examine the trolley car in question. Since it appears that since the accident the trolley car has been repaired, in any event, the instant motion should be refused. Quaere — Whether such inspection is necessary on any theory. Court citing Ryan vs. Lilley Co., 121 Conn. 26, 31.

MEMORANDUM FILED JUNE 12, 1937.

CORNELL, J.

Plaintiff alleges that the injuries for which she claims the right to recover were sustained while she was a passenger on one of the defendant's trolley cars when a fire broke out in the latter.

In the instant motion she maintains "that it is necessary for her to inspect and examine said trolley car now in possession and control of defendant, in order to ascertain all the facts pertaining to the cause of the outbreak of said fire" and, therefore, "moves for permission to inspect and examine said trolley car".

The motion is palpably not one for disclosure under Gen. Stat. Cum. Supp., 1935, § 1659c; Practice Book, §§ 72-78, since these relate only to the "inspections of papers, books or documents . . . within the knowledge, possession or power of the adverse party". To be well grounded, therefore, it must invoke some inherent power of the court.

Counsel cites no authority in support of his contention that the court possesses the power to order the defendant to permit the plaintiff to examine the trolley car in question for the purpose stated in the motion. The court's own research has revealed none in this country.

In any event, in the instant case the motion should be refused since it appears that since the accident the trolley car has been repaired and so is no longer in the condition it was at the time the fire occurred.

Quaere, whether such inspection is necessary on any theory. See Ryan vs. Lilley Company, 121 Conn. 26, 31.