Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hill v. Way

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided August 8, 1933Published

1DissentMaltbie, C. J.

I am not able to agree with the rule of law as to the duty of the defendant stated in the majority opinion. The plaintiff was a party to the creation of an obstruction in the highway amounting to a common nuisance, and was equally responsible with the others for the creation of that nuisance. The question presented is, what duty did the defendant driver owe to him to avoid the danger of his suffering injury. Whether one owes a duty to another and if so the nature of that duty depends upon the relationship in which they stand to each other. Pomponio v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 66 Conn.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Pomponio v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
  2. Johnson v. PattersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1840
  3. Wilmot v. McPaddenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
  4. Carlson v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
  5. Kalmich v. WhiteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920

6 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