Legal Opinion

McCaughey v. Smiddy

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 10, 1929PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHinmaist, J.

The complaint alleged that the defendant “through his agent and representative,” drove his automobile negligently, thereby injuring the plaintiff. On the trial the plaintiff introduced evidence to the effect that for several months previous to the date of the injury the defendant’s son, who was operating the automobile at the time, had frequently driven the car, sometimes with his father, but often either alone or with other persons. This evidence was not objected to as not within the allegations of the complaint, but the defendant now assigns as error that portion of the. charge which…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. O'Keefe v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
  2. Haugh v. KirschSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
  3. Irwin v. JudgeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909
  4. Woodruff v. PerrottiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  5. Santo v. MaynardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1889

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Baker v. ParadisoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
  2. Mitnick v. Whalen Brothers, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
  3. Meyers v. ArmSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
  4. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. American InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1968
  5. Masterton v. Lenox Realty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1940

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