Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

tortplaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencetrialsustained
tortplaintiffdefendantnegligencetrialwill

Related Cases

Crankshaw v. Piedmont Driving Club, Inc., 115 Ga.App. 820, 156 S.E.2d 208
View Case »
Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp., 300 N.C. 669, 268 S.E.2d 504
View Case »
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, 291 N.W.2d 686
View Case »
Marcon v. Kmart Corp., 573 N.W.2d 728, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,163
View Case »
Lees v. Smith, 363 So.2d 974
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Squires v. Reynolds, 125 Conn. 366, 5 A.2d 877

Facts

Frederick F. Squires was crossing a two-lane highway at night when he was struck by a car driven by the defendant, V. F. Reynolds. The defendant swerved to avoid two other pedestrians and hit Squires, causing severe injuries including multiple fractures in his left leg and other serious physical and mental suffering. Despite extensive medical treatment, Squires' leg did not heal properly, leading to further complications and a second injury while he was exercising under medical advice.

When the plaintiff saw that he was going to be hit, he turned and was struck on his left side. He spun around and fell in the south lane. He suffered a compound, comminuted multiple fracture (twenty-three pieces of bone were counted) of both bones of the left leg, causing serious and permanent damage to the bones, nerves and muscles, a severe scalp wound, an injury to the index finger of his left hand, a deep bruise of his right hip and other bruises and contusions.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the defendants were negligent and whether the damages awarded to the plaintiff were excessive.

The only ruling on evidence made ground of error related to the estimate of speed of the automobile made by an eyewitness.

Rule

The court applied the rule of proximate cause, stating that to maintain an action of tort, the defendant's tort must have been a substantial factor in producing the damage complained of.

The rule on proximate cause approved in Mahoney v. Beatman, 110 Conn. 184, 195, 147 A. 462, 766, 66 A.L.R. 1121, is that 'To constitute such causal relation between defendant's tort and plaintiff's damage as will suffice to maintain an action of tort, the defendant's tort must have been a substantial factor in producing the damage complained of.'

Analysis

The court found that the defendant's actions were negligent as he swerved to avoid pedestrians and struck the plaintiff, who was crossing the street with due care. The court also determined that the second injury sustained by the plaintiff was a direct result of the first injury, as he was exercising his leg under medical advice when the second injury occurred.

On these facts as they are amplified in the finding the court was fully justified in finding both negligence on the part of the defendant and due care on the part of the plaintiff.

Conclusion

The court upheld the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff, affirming both the finding of negligence and the amount of damages awarded.

There is no error.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Frederick F. Squires, prevailed in the case because the court found the defendants negligent and the damages awarded were justified based on the severity of his injuries.

The record before us unmistakably shows that the trial court was assiduous in its efforts to reach a just and sound decision and gave most careful consideration to every element in the situation.

You must be