Case Name: Mary A. Saunders vs. Isaac E. Pierce et als.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1928-01-06
Citations: 107 Conn. 735
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary A. Saunders vs. Isaac E. Pierce et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 107
Pages: 735–736

Head Matter:
Mary A. Saunders vs. Isaac E. Pierce et als.
First Judicial District, Hartford,
October Term, 1927.
Wheeler, C, J., Maltbie, Haines, Hinman and Banks, Js.
Argued October 6th, 1927
decided January 6th, 1928.
Joseph F. Berry, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph P. O’Cormell and Cyril Coleman, for the appellants (defendants).
Donald Caffney, with whom was Josiah H. Peck, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff was injured while operating an amusement device, known as the Custer ear, 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 reason ably 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 Atl. 714.
There is no error.