Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1967

Vuono v. Eldred

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided December 12, 1967

155 Conn. 704; 236 A.2d 470

Cases that cite this one

47 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

ROBICHAUD v. HEWLETT PACKARD CO. (Connecticut Superior Court 2003)
Smith v. 109 Foster Street, No. Cv00 0072817 (Jun. 5, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Chro Ex. Rel. John Doe v. Travel Tour, No. Cv 92 0519557 (Jul. 12, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Mascaro v. Lathrop, No. Cv 93 0530007, (Jun. 13, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Sheridan v. Board of Education (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Kostyal v. Cass (Conn. 1972)
Spencer v. Good Earth Restaurant Corporation (Conn. 1972)
Bartholomew v. Catania (Conn. 1971)
United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Commission (Conn. 1969)
Tracey v. Hill Associates Ltd, No. X01 Cv 98 0166061 (Jan. 3, 2003) (Connecticut Superior Court 2003)
Yimoyines v. Classic Turf Co., No. X01 Cv 00 01613345 S (Jan. 28, 2003) (Connecticut Superior Court 2003)
Tracey v. Hill Associates Ltd., No. X01 Cv 98 0166061 (Dec. 24, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Arrow Electronics v. Federal Ins. Co., No. X01 Cv 00 0167080 (Jan. 7, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Assoc., No. X01-Cv-00 0169605s (Aug. 19, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Milford Hospital v. Federal Ins., No. X01 Cv 01 0075817 S (Oct. 15, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Simkins Industries v. Marsh USA, No. X01-Cv 01 0166142 S (Jul. 19, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Schipul v. Crovo, No. Cv 01-0085367-S (Jul. 18, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Banks v. New Haven, No. X01 Cv 00 0166009 (Dec. 24, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Sherman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer., No. Cv 99 0078688s (Mar. 6, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Simons v. Louis Family Restaurant, No. Cv 00 0082280s (Jul. 25, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
McCoy v. Roche, No. X01 Cv 00 0168694s (May 28, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Arnone v. Connecticut Light Power, No. X01 Cv 98 0168276 (Mar. 22, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Rytman, No. X01 Cv 87 0159941s (Aug. 20, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Palmieri v. New Haven, No. X01 Cv 98 0166015 (Dec. 24, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Connecticut National Bank v. Rytman, No. X01 Cv 87 0159941 (Jul. 19, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant, Boger A. Eldred, to recover for personal injuries and property damage arising out of a collision between a car owned and operated by the plaintiff and a car operated by Patricia M. Eldred, who is not a party to this action. *705The complaint alleged that the defendant owned the latter car and that the injuries and damage complained of were caused by the negligent operation of the car by Patricia. There was no allegation that Patricia was the agent of the defendant, and the family car doctrine was not pleaded. In his answer, the defendant denied ownership of the vehicle.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury, at the direction of the court, returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff thereupon moved to set aside the verdict. The court granted the motion and set aside the verdict. From this decision, the defendant has appealed to us.

“Although a directed verdict is not favored, it is justified if on the evidence the jury could not reasonably and legally reach any other conclusion than that embodied in the verdict as directed.” McDonald v. Connecticut Co., 151 Conn. 14, 17, 193 A.2d 490; White v. E & F Construction Co., 151 Conn. 110, 112, 193 A.2d 716; Johnson v. Consolidated Industries, Inc., 153 Conn. 522, 524, 218 A.2d 380. In reviewing the action of the trial court, in first directing and thereafter setting aside the verdict, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Johnson v. Consolidated Industries, Inc., supra.

Since the action of the trial court in setting aside a verdict involves the exercise of a broad legal discretion, it will not be disturbed unless that discretion has been abused. Brooks v. Singer, 147 Conn. 719, 158 A.2d 745; Butler v. Steck, 146 Conn. 114, 117, 148 A.2d 246. An examination of the appendices discloses that no evidence was presented to establish that the defendant was the owner of the automobile. Furthermore, there was no allegation and no evidence that Patricia M. Eldred was the agent *706of the defendant. Consequently, there was nothing on which a verdict for the plaintiff could be predicated.

There is error, and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment on the verdict.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.