Legal Opinion

Plona v. Connecticut Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided November 5, 1924PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Assuming that the jury did not believe the motorman’s story, there was no testimony as to the decedent’s movements between the Bernstein house and the place of the accident. There was testimony that the track was commonly used as a foot path; that it was considered unsafe to walk in the traveled roadway because of the density of traffic, and that the path north of the track was rough. This testimony may afford some uncertain basis for inference as to the prob able conduct of a foot passenger traveling along the highway; but it affords no basis for inference as to the probable conduct of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fine v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1918
  2. Mullen v. Mohican Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1921

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Correnti v. CatinoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
  2. Hizam v. BlackmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
  3. DePaola v. SeamourSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
  4. Burke v. Town of West HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
  5. Simauskas v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1925

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API