(Download) "Lurier v. Danbury Bus Corporation" by Supreme Court of Connecticut ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Lurier v. Danbury Bus Corporation
- Author : Supreme Court of Connecticut
- Release Date : January 23, 1957
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
This is an action to recover damages for
personal injuries claimed to have been
sustained as the result of a collision between the
plaintiff's automobile and the named defendant's
bus. Although both the operator and the owner of
the bus were made parties defendant, the operator
alone will be referred to as the defendant since
the issue of agency was conceded. The court
directed a verdict for the defendant and
thereafter denied the plaintiff's motion to set it
aside. The plaintiff has appealed. The power of a trial court to direct a verdict
is necessarily sharply circumscribed. "[L]itigants
have a constitutional right to have issues of fact
decided by the jury and not by the court." Ardoline
v. Keegan, 140 Conn. 552, 555, 102 A.2d 352. The
direction of a verdict is not favored since the
"same end can be reached by setting aside the
verdict after the plaintiff has been accorded a
full trial of his cause. The fact that the
directed verdict may, by the large expense
entailed in printing the evidence, result in the
inability of the defeated litigant to have the
directed verdict reviewed, should make the trial
judge especially careful to be sure of this issue
before directing a verdict, and if any question
remains in his mind as to the ruling, he ought to
deny the motion to direct. Subsequently, upon the
motion to set aside the verdict, he can examine
the evidence in the light of our law with
deliberation and reflection and arrive at his
conclusion apart from the haste and pressure of
the courtroom." Ulrich v. New York, N.H. & H.R.
Co., 98 Conn. 567, 570, 119 A. 890; Greenley v.
Miller's, Inc., 111 Conn. 584, 588, 150 A. 500.
This rule still applies even though, under
Practice Book 448, a narrative statement of
the evidence is now used, as it was in this
case, in lieu of the printing of the transcript,
[144 Conn. 547]