Legal Opinion

Spagnola v. New Method Laundry Corporation

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 12, 1930PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaines, J.

This appeal involves but a single question, viz: Was the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law? A careful reading of all the evidence given on this feature of the case, satisfies us that the jury could reasonably have found that the plaintiff had stopped near the trolley rail to allow an approaching trolley car to pass; instead of passing, the car came to a full stop, and the motorman motioned to the plaintiff to pass in front of the standing car. It is a reasonable inference that at this time the defendant’s automobile was not within the vision of the plaintiff, being…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Naylor v. HavilandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1914
  2. Wennell v. DowsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1914
  3. Cecil v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1924

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Nolde Bros., Inc. v. WraySupreme Court of Virginia · 1980
  2. Dix v. SpampinatoCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
  3. Dix v. SpampinatoCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  4. Slater v. ShirkeyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Cunningham v. WalshSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1932

3 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