Adomaities v. Hopkins

• Decision Date: 20 July 1920
• Citation: 111 A. 178,95 Conn. 239
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ADOMAITIES v. HOPKINS.

111 A. 178

95 Conn. 239

ADOMAITIES v. HOPKINS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 20, 1920

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John P. Kellogg Judge.

Action by Dominick Adomaities against Samuel E. Hopkins. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

The plaintiff's injuries, for which recovery is sought in this action, were sustained as a result of a collision between a horse and wagon driven by the plaintiff and the defendant's automobile, operated by one Jermainne, the defendant's chauffeur, and its sole occupant. The uncontradicted evidence offered on behalf of each of the parties established the following facts touching the relations of the chauffeur and the defendant:

The former was employed generally as the latter's chauffeur, and had been so employed for some 2 1/2 years. As such employé he was subject to the defendant's call at all hours. During the late afternoon or evening of Saturday, July 14, 1917, he was summoned to take the defendant and his wife from their home in Naugatuck to the summer home of a friend in Middlebury some 5 or 6 miles distant. When they arrived at their destination, it had begun to rain, and a thunderstorm was imminent. After Mr. and Mrs. Hopkins had alighted, the chauffeur asked of Mr. Hopkins permission to return to Naugatuck, instead of waiting until the latter and Mrs Hopkins should finish their call, as in the regular course he would have been expected to do. The reasons assigned by the chauffeur for this request were that he wished an opportunity to finish his Saturday night shopping, which he had not completed, and furthermore desired to go home to be with his wife during the approaching thundershower, as she was afraid of them. Mr. Hopkins gave his consent, telling the chauffeur to return for him at 11 o'clock. It was on the trip back to Naugatuck, and during the storm that followed the chauffeur's departure, that the accident happened.

Where a chauffeur, having taken his employer and wife to the home of friends, obtained permission to return to town, instead of waiting, as was usual, his object being to finish his own shopping and to go home and be with his wife during an approaching storm, the employer was not liable for negligence of the chauffeur on his return trip from the town.

Clayton L. Klein, of Waterbury, for appellant.

William B. Ely and Edmund Zacher, both of New Haven, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Only one of the six reasons of appeal is pursued in the brief of the appellant's counsel. That one complains of the court's...