Case ID: conn_91/html/0551-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Blazas vs. The Connecticut Company.
    First Judicial District, Hartford,
    March Term, 1917.
    Prentice, C. J., Thayer, Roraback, Wheeler and Beach, Js.
    Upon an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in an action for personal injuries tried to the court, it is not material whether the plaintiff was in-the exercise of due care or not, if the facts found unmistakably disclose that there was no negligence upon the part of the defendant.
    Argued March 6th—
    decided March 14th, 1917
    
      Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in Hartford County, Shumway, Jfacts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff.
    
      No error.
    
    
      Lawrence E. Lewis, for the appellant (plaintiff).
    
      Joseph F. Berry, for the appellee (defendant).
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was injured by being run into by the defendant’s trolley-car. The court has found the subordinate facts, from which the conclusions are inevitable, that the defendant was not guilty of negligence and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The plaintiff, in his appeal, complains of the finding in several more or less pertinent particulars, and asks its correction. Nearly all of these particulars concern the plaintiff’s exercise of due care. Only a few bear even remotely upon the issue as to the defendant’s conduct.- With regard to these latter we are unable to discover, from an examination of the testimony, that this court would be justified in changing in any material respects the finding as made. As the facts, as they are found and must stand, unmistakably disclose that the defendant was in the exercise of ordinary care, it becomes unimportant whether or not the plaintiff was himself at fault, as the trial court found him to have been.

There is no error.