Case Name: Bertha Hantmann vs. John H. Ryan
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1917-12-16
Citations: 92 Conn. 216
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bertha Hantmann vs. John H. Ryan.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 216–217

Head Matter:
Bertha Hantmann vs. John H. Ryan.
Second Judicial District, Norwich,
October Term, 1917.
Prentice, O. J., Roraback, Wheeler, Beach and Shumway, Js.
It is quite within the province of a trial court to set aside, as unreasonable, a verdict which is founded solely upon the testimony of a single witness which is not only unsatisfactory and improbable in itself, but is at variance with that of other witnesses and with facts and circumstances established beyond question.
Argued October 16th —
decided December 16th, 1917.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, brought to the Superior Court in New London County and tried to the jury before Case, J.; verdict for the plaintiff for $200, which the trial court, upon motion, set aside as against the evidence, and appeal by the plaintiff.
No error.
Jeremiah J. Desmond, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Roderick M°. Douglass, for the appellee (defendant).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff, a child of tender years, was injured in her person by being run into by an automobile driven along the highway in front of her home by someone. It was claimed in her behalf that the defendant was the driver of the car. This the latter denied. Most of the evidence presented to the jury concerned the issue thus raised. Recovery by the plaintiff was dependent upon her ability to sustain the burden which was upon her to establish the defendant's identity as the driver of the car. The evidence offered in support of her claim was limited to testimony given by her mother. That testimony was so unsatisfactory and improbable and so much at variance, not only with the testimony of other witnesses but also with facts and circumstances established beyond reasonable question, that it was quite within the province of the trial court, having observed her appearance and demeanor upon the stand, to set aside a verdict founded solely upon it as being one which, especially in view of the other testimony, was not reasonably reached.
There is no error.