Legal Opinion

Haugh v. Kirsch

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided January 11, 1927PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.

The substituted complaint alleges that at the time of the collision between the plaintiff’s truck and the defendant’s car the latter was operated by the defendant’s son, Russell Kirsch, as her agent and bailee, with her consent and in carrying out the business and purpose for which the automobile was kept and maintained by the defendant. The plain tiff’s claimed right of action is based upon the rule of law which has been adopted in this State that when an automobile is maintained by the owner thereof for the general use and convenience of his or her family, such owner is liable for the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Perry v. HaritosSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
  2. Morse v. Consolidated Railway Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
  3. Stickney v. EpsteinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  4. Wolf v. SulikSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
  5. Lowe v. HendrickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1913

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Glodenis v. American Brass Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
  2. Cummings v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
  3. Cockerham v. PottsOregon Supreme Court · 1933
  4. O'Keefe v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
  5. German v. GermanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938

16 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