Anderson v. Burgess Express Co. Inc.

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: Anderson v. Burgess Express Co. Inc., 132 Conn. 545, 45 A.2d 825 (Conn. 1946)
• Decision Date: 29 January 1946
• Parties: ANDERSON et al. v. BURGESS EXPRESS CO., Inc., et al.

132 Conn. 545

45 A.2d 825

ANDERSON et al.

v.BURGESS EXPRESS CO., Inc., et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 29, 1946.

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

Action by William Anderson against Burgess Express Company, Inc., and another to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants, brought to the Superior Court and tried to the jury. The Connecticut Company intervened as a coplaintiff. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, and appeal by the defendants.

No error.

Philip R. Shiff, of New Haven, for appellants.

Edward L. Reynolds, John F. Carroll, and James W. Curran, all of New Haven, for appellee Burgess Exp. Co.

Edwin H. Hall and Thomas J. O'Sullivan, both of New Haven, for appellee Connecticut Co.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff Anderson brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant Sprool in the operation of a truck owned by the named defendant. Anderson was at the time motorman on a trolley car of the Connecticut Company with which the truck collided. The company intervened as a coplaintiff under § 5231 of the General Statutes, claiming recovery of workmen's compensation it had paid or by award become obligated to pay to Anderson. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs and the defendants have appealed.

While numerous assignments of error were made, only three are presented in the defendants' brief. On these, two are claimed errors in the trial court's instructions to the jury, one in a paragraph of the original charge and the other in a supplemental instruction given in response to an inquiry by the jury. The defendants, at the conclusion of the original charge, made no objection which called the court's attention to the error now claimed, and they made no objection at the conclusion of the supplemental charge. These assignments present nothing for us to consider. Practice Book, 1934, p. 59, § 156; Ladd v. Burdge, 132 Conn. 296, 297, 43 A.2d 752.

The remaining claim of error is based on the exclusion of a question asked in the cross-examination of a witness called by the plaintiffs. The collision between the truck and the trolley car occurred at a street intersection. The trolley car was being operated on a through street, which the truck entered from a cross street. The plaintiffs...