Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceverdictsustained

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligenceappealverdictmotion

Related Cases

Figlar v. Gordon, 133 Conn. 577, 53 A.2d 645

Facts

On August 1, 1943, Anna M. Figlar and Mary A. Liscinsky were crossing Stratford Avenue in Bridgeport when they were struck by an automobile driven by Norman F. Gordon. The plaintiffs had observed a green traffic light for southbound traffic and proceeded across the street in the crosswalk, passing in front of a stopped car and a bus. Just after they passed the bus, Gordon's car struck them, causing significant injuries. The bus driver, Garrabrandt, had started the bus's engine, which frightened the plaintiffs and contributed to their decision to move forward into the path of Gordon's car.

The plaintiffs stood on the sidewalk at the northwesterly corner of the intersection; as they were about to proceed southerly across Stratford Avenue, they observed that the traffic light showed green for southbound traffic and red for eastbound traffic.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the defendants were negligent and whether their negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs' injuries.

The defendants appeal the verdicts and judgment for both plaintiffs.

Rule

The court applied the principle that negligence is determined by the reasonable foreseeability of harm resulting from a failure to exercise care. The test is whether an ordinary person in the defendant's position would anticipate that harm of the general nature suffered by the plaintiffs was likely to result.

The ultimate test of his duty to use care, the sine qua non of negligence upon his part, was to be found in the reasonable foreseeability that harm might result if it was not exercised.

Analysis

The court found that the jury had sufficient evidence to determine that both the bus driver's actions and Gordon's driving were negligent. The bus driver's actions, which included starting the bus's engine and moving it forward, were found to have frightened the plaintiffs, leading them into the path of Gordon's car. The court emphasized that the negligence of both drivers was contemporaneous and contributed to the accident, thus both could be held liable.

The jury could properly have found that the bus driver's negligence and that of the defendant Gordon in driving by on the right of the bus were substantially contemporaneous and coexistent, and that the negligence of both continued actively and continuously operative up to the time the plaintiffs were struck.

Conclusion

The court upheld the jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the evidence supported the finding of negligence on the part of both the bus driver and Gordon.

The court did not err in denying the defendants' motion.

Who won?

The plaintiffs, Anna M. Figlar and Mary A. Liscinsky, prevailed in the case because the jury found sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants, leading to the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs.

By their verdicts the jury awarded $30,000 damages to the plaintiff Figlar and $3,000 to the plaintiff Liscinsky.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password