Jacek v. Bacote In Re Sapach's Estate.

• Decision Date: 09 August 1949
• Citation: 135 Conn. 702,68 A.2d 144
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: JACEK v. BACOTE et al. In re SAPACH'S ESTATE.

135 Conn. 702

68 A.2d 144

JACEK

v. BACOTE et al.In re SAPACH'S ESTATE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Aug. 9, 1949.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Quinlan, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth Jacek, administratrix of the estate of Michael Sapach, deceased, against Theodore Bacote and another to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff's intestate, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants, brought to the Superior Court and tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for defendants and plaintiff appeals.

No error.

Leon E. McCarthy, Ansonia, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph J. Chernauskas, Ansonia, for appellant (plaintiff).

Martin E. Gormley, New Haven, for appellees (defendants).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.

ELLS, Judge.

The plaintiff's intestate, a pedestrian, was struck and killed by an automobile driven by the named defendant and owned by his wife, the other defendant. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff has appealed from the trial court's refusal to set it aside and from the judgment.

The facts which the jury reasonably could have found may be summarized. The Bridge Street bridge spans the Naugatuck River at Ansonia and is a main artery of traffic between two sections of the city. It is 850 feet long and the roadway is 39 feet wide. There are sidewalks on both sides, and there are no crosswalks. From the east end of the structure to approximately the middle there is a rise of 19.44 feet, and from the middle to the west end there is a descent of about six feet. On April 5, 1947, about 6:30 p. m., the named defendant drove to the east end of the bridge, stopped to allow traffic coming from it to pass, then drove onto it and proceeded westerly. A light rain was falling, both windshield wipers were working and the lights were lit on low beam, although it was not yet dark. He traveled in a straight line on his own right-hand side of the road, about one and one-half feet from the northerly curb, with his car in low gear for about 100 feet and then in second gear. He was looking straight ahead. When he reached the top of the elevation in the middle of the bridge, his car was traveling at twenty to twenty-five miles per hour and he was preparing to shift into high gear. He momentarily glanced down at the shift lever and when he looked up he saw a black object in the road in front of him, ten or twelve feet away. He pulled his car to the left and started to apply the brakes but struck the object with the right front of his car. He did not, at that time, know what it was. The plaintiff's intestate had stepped off the curb of the north sidewalk directly in front of the car and was struck by it. He was wearing a brown overcoat and carrying an open umbrella over his head.

Upon the foregoing facts, it is evident that the trial court did not err in refusing to set the verdict aside. Whether the defendant driver, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have seen the plaintiff's intestate in time to have avoided the accident by stopping or swerving his car was a question of fact for the jury. Rosen v. Goldstein, 128 Conn. 605, 607, 24 A.2d 840. The defendants produced evidence which, if believed by the jury, was ample to warrant a finding that the plaintiff's intestate failed to exercise ordinary care under the circumstances which confronted him and that his negligence was a proximate cause of his injury and death. The plaintiff seeks to avoid the latter consequence by challenging the credibility of the eyewitness who testified that the decedent stepped suddenly from the north curb directly into the path of the car. it was for the jury to determine the...