(Download) "Pierce v. Albanese" by Supreme Court of Connecticut # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Pierce v. Albanese
- Author : Supreme Court of Connecticut
- Release Date : January 13, 1957
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 66 KB
Description
This is an action brought under 4307 of the
General Statutes, popularly called the Dram
Shop Act. The plaintiff Gordon D. Pierce owned
and was a passenger in an Oldsmobile operated by
the plaintiff Grace E. Pierce, his wife, when it
was involved in a collision with a Chevrolet owned
and operated by Floyd F. Gilleo on route 25 in Newtown
on the night of September 28, 1952. The defendant is
Pasquale Albanese, who owned and conducted on
[144 Conn. 244]
route 25 in Newtown a place of business, known as
Pat's Log Cabin, where alcoholic beverages were
sold to be consumed on the premises. The
plaintiffs also brought suit against Floyd F.
Gilleo, claiming damages for the alleged negligent
operation of his Chevrolet. Floyd F. Gilleo filed
a counterclaim seeking damages from the Pierces.
Floyd H. Gilleo, a passenger in the Gilleo
Chevrolet, also sued the Pierces for their alleged
negligence. The cases were tried together to a
court with a jury. Verdicts were returned in favor
of the Pierces in the present action against
Albanese. The other actions resulted in verdicts
in favor of Floyd F. Gilleo on the complaint of
the Pierces and in favor of the Pierces on Floyd
F. Gilleo's counterclaim and in the action brought
by Floyd H. Gilleo against them. We are directly
concerned here only with the action brought by the
Pierces against Albanese, in which he has
appealed, alleging errors in the court's charge,
in the denial of his motions to set aside the
verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict, in the refusal to submit an interrogatory
to the jury, and in the finding. The errors
alleged in the charge and in the ruling on the
motions raise, among other questions, the
defendant's claim that 4307 (as amended, Cum. Sup. 1955,
2172d) is unconstitutional. If that is so, a
consideration of all the other issues becomes
unnecessary to a decision of the case, and
therefore we shall resolve that issue first.