Torts · MBE-tested
Julia DeLucco et al. v. Mott's Super Markets, Inc.
158 Conn. 615·Connecticut Supreme Court·1969·CT
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Julia DeLucco et al. v. Mott’s Super Markets, Inc.
King, C. J., Alcorn, House, Thim and Ryan, Js.
Argued June 3
decided June 17, 1969
Gerald B. Swirsky, for the appellant (defendant).
Robert B. Cohen, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The question of negligence on the part of the defendant and the question of contributory negligence on the part of the named plaintiff presented factual issues for the jury to determine. The verdict was a result which could reasonably have been reached on a permissible view of the evidence. Bonomo v. Capitol City Lumber Co., 154 Conn. 714, 228 A.2d 501. The court, therefore, did not err in refusing to set it aside. Hemmings v. Weinstein, 151 Conn. 502, 505, 199 A.2d 687.
There is no error.