Baum v. Atkinson

• Decision Date: 07 December 1938
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BAUM v. ATKINSON et al.

3 A.2d 305

125 Conn. 72

BAUM v. ATKINSON et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 7, 1938

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Abraham S Bordon, Judge.

Action by Ida Baum against Winifred O. Atkinson and another for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision alleged to have been caused by negligence of defendants and tried to the jury. From a decision setting aside a verdict in their favor, defendants appeal.

Charles H. Blackall, of Hartford, for appellant Atkinson.

DeLancey Pelgrift, of Hartford (M. J. Blumenfeld of Hartford, on the brief), for appellant Baum.

Samuel H. Friedman and Moses A. Berman, both of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS JJ.

BROWN Judge.

The plaintiff was a passenger in the automobile driven by her husband, the defendant Joseph Baum, which was run into from behind by the automobile owned and driven by the defendant Atkinson. The jury rendered a verdict for both defendants. The sole question upon this appeal is whether the court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to set this verdict aside. The jury could reasonably have found these facts. The plaintiff was a passenger in a sedan automobile being driven westerly along Asylum Avenue in Hartford by the defendant Baum at about midnight on January 12, 1938. He drove through the intersection of Woodland street at between twenty and twenty-five miles an hour, and proceeding down the slight grade just beyond was well over toward the curb on his right and slowed to six or seven miles an hour, when the collision occurred about one hundred feet west of the intersection. He did not know whether any car was following him but gave no signal to indicate the slackening of the speed of his car. The defendant Atkinson in her coupe had been following the Baum car for a considerable distance, keeping about fifty feet behind it, and continued in the same relative position directly behind it after passing the intersection.

As she proceeded, upon observing by the red light on the Baum car that she had come within thirty-five feet of it, she first realized that it was slackening its speed and that it was necessary for her to do something to avoid it. Although there was ample room to pass to the left, when she tried to do so she gained upon it so rapidly that she found it necessary to apply the brakes of her car to check its speed. She did so. This caused her car to skid for a distance of ten to fifteen feet, and it bumped into the rear of the Baum car with sufficient force to injure the plaintiff. At the time, the roadway was slippery by reason of five inches of fresh wet snow which had fallen since 7 o'clock that evening, snow was still falling heavily, and the visibility was very poor. The rear of the Baum car was so covered with snow that the defendant Atkinson was unable to discern its outline as she followed along behind it just before the collision, although her windshield wiper was working properly and her headlights were shining brightly. S...