From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saunders v. Pierce

Supreme Court of Connecticut First Judicial District, Hartford, October Term, 1927
Jan 6, 1928
139 A. 690 (Conn. 1928)

Opinion

Argued October 6th, 1927

Decided January 6th, 1928.

ACTION to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County and tried to the jury before Dickenson, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $1,750, and appeal by the defendants. No error.

Joseph F. Berry, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph P. O'Connell and Cyril Coleman, for the appellants (defendants).

Donald Gaffney, with whom was Josiah H. Peck, for the appellee (plaintiff).


The plaintiff was injured while operating an amusement device, known as the Custer car, a small four wheeled device resembling a miniature automobile propelled by electricity, in defendants' amusement park. The defendants were bound to exercise reasonable care in seeing that this device was reasonably safe for those riding in and operating the car, and also in giving all of those, not familiar with its operation, adequate instruction in the method of operating and steering the car.

The jury might reasonably have found that the failure of the defendants to exercise such reasonable care was due to either or both of these causes, and that the accident was one which the defendants might reasonably have anticipated. Turgeon v. Connecticut Co., 84 Conn. 537, 542, 80 A. 714.


Summaries of

Saunders v. Pierce

Supreme Court of Connecticut First Judicial District, Hartford, October Term, 1927
Jan 6, 1928
139 A. 690 (Conn. 1928)
Case details for

Saunders v. Pierce

Case Details

Full title:MARY A. SAUNDERS vs. ISAAC E. PIERCE ET ALS

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut First Judicial District, Hartford, October Term, 1927

Date published: Jan 6, 1928

Citations

139 A. 690 (Conn. 1928)
139 A. 690

Citing Cases

Nordgren v. Strong

One who invites others to come upon his place of business and use his facilities is under a duty to exercise…

Garafola v. Rosecliff Realty Co., Inc.

Cf. Hellstern v. Smelowitz, 17 N.J. Super. 366 ( App. Div. 1952); Frear v. Manchester Traction, Light Power…