Legal Opinion
Godfrey v. Connecticut Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided October 6, 1922PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBurpee, J.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was injured “because of the dangerous construction and negligent operation” of an amusement device located on premises owned by the Connecticut Company and leased to the other defendants. Upon the evidence the trial court has found: “The device, upon which the plaintiff was injured, was, at the time of the accident as operated by the person in charge of the same, inherently dangerous, . . . and this fact it was the duty of” the defendants “to know.” After the trial, it is not found nor claimed that the contrivance was negligently operated. Therefore…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Barmore v. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1904
- Thompson v. Lowell, Lawrence, & Haverhill Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Thornton v. Maine State Agricultural SocietySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1902
- Turgeon v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1911
- Bernier v. Woodstock Agricultural SocietySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Wray v. Fairfield Amusement Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
- Facey v. MerkleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
- Firszt v. Capitol Park Realty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
- Caporale v. C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.