Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

155 Conn. 704

Vuono v. Eldred

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 12, 1967

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1967-12-12

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In Connecticut, a directed verdict may be rendered only where, on the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, the trier of fact could not reasonably reach any other conclusion than that embodied in the verdict as directed.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 7412 - Chro Ex. Rel. John Doe v. Travel Tour, No. Cv 92 0519557 (Jul. 12, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 6590 - Mascaro v. Lathrop, No. Cv 93 0530007, (Jun. 13, 1994)

Relies on Butler v. Steck · White v. E & F CONSTRUCTION CO. · Brooks v. Singer

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-12-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently May 2003 · most notably United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Commission (1969), Spencer v. Good Earth Restaurant Corporation (1972)

55 state decisions

37019671970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The 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.

¶2At 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.

¶3“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.

¶4Since 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.

¶5There is error, and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment on the verdict.

/155/conn/704 · .json · Public domain