Legal Opinion

Hardy v. Weitzman

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 6, 1960PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

The plaintiffs have appealed from a judgment for the defendants entered upon a jury’s verdict. The plaintiff Hilda M. Hardy claims to have fallen and sustained injuries because of the defendants’ negligence in placing and maintaining a mat outside the doorway of the defendant Benjamin Weitzman’s store, which is located in a building owned by the defendant Fay Weitzman. The defendants denied that they were negligent and in a special defense alleged that Hilda was chargeable with contributory negligence. The plaintiffs claimed that Hilda tripped over the upturned corner of the mat and that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Meglio v. ComeauSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
  2. Crowell v. Middletown Savings BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
  3. Messier v. ZanglisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
  4. Hasler v. T. H. Canty & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
  5. Foster v. Hartford Buick Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1944

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Harry A. Finman & Son, Inc. v. Connecticut Truck & Trailer Service Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
  2. Royal Homes, Inc. v. Dalene Hardwood Flooring Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1964
  3. Bredouw v. JonesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967
  4. Hanken v. Buckley Bros., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
  5. Goodman v. Metallic Ladder Manufacturing Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980

4 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