Case ID: conn_95/html/0441-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sol Bodek vs. The Connecticut Company. Eli Rozovsky vs. The Connecticut Company.
    Third Judicial District, Bridgeport,
    October Term, 1920.
    Wheeler, C. J., Beach, Gager, Case and Curtis, Js.
    A trial court should direct a verdict for the defendant when that is the only conclusion which can legally be drawn from the evidence.
    A sign found near the scene of a trolley-car accident six months or more thereafter, is not admissible in evidence as the sign which hung from the defendant’s cross-wires at the time of the accident, without proof of identification.
    Submitted on briefs October 26th
    decided November 10th, 1920.
    Actions to recover damages for injuries to the person of one plaintiff and to the property of the other, alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the jury before Webb, J.; verdict and judgment for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiffs.
    
      No error in either case.
    
    
      Charles Kleiner and Michael J. Quinn, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
    
      Harrison T. Sheldon and William B. Gumbart, for the appellee (defendant).
   Per Curiam.

Our consideration of the evidence satisfies us that the conclusion of the trial court was not only not erroneous, but was the only conclusion which could reasonably be drawn from the evidence. We have no occasion to pass upon the question of the due care of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs offered a sign, found near the place of the accident some six months thereafter, and claimed to have been suspended from defendant’s cross-wires prior to the accident. This was properly excluded. No proof was offered that the sign was the same sign as the one Candee testified he had seen suspended from the cross-wires prior to the accident. Without such proof the evidence was wholly immaterial.

There is no error in either case.