Berman v. Berman
| Decision Date | 25 October 1929 |
| Citation | 110 Conn. 169,147 A. 568 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BERMAN v. BERMAN. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Edward M. Yeomans Judge.
Action by Hyman Berman against Leo Berman to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff while a guest in defendant's automobile, caused by alleged wanton misconduct of defendant brought to the superior court and tried to the court. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.
Ralph O. Wells and William S. Locke, both of Hartford, for appellant.
Abraham S. Bordon and Aaron Nassau, both of Hartford, for appellee.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.
The court found these facts: The plaintiff was a guest, riding in the rear seat of defendant's automobile, while defendant and his fiancée, who were experienced drivers of automobiles, rode in the front seat, the fiancée driving. They were going from Hartford to New York. On leaving New Haven, snow flurries began making the road wet and slippery. From New Haven to the point of the accident in Stratford, about 15 miles, the automobile was driven at a speed of 40 miles an hour. The plaintiff requested the driver to slow down; she refused his request. Twice the plaintiff requested the driver to stop and allow him to get out. She did not stop nor slow down, but remarked to plaintiff that she knew how to drive and to sit in the back and keep still. The defendant did not interfere or take part in this discussion. At the point of the accident there was a double line of trolley tracks in the center of the road and a narrow driving space on either side of these tracks, and near this point the road was slightly narrowed by barrels standing at the side of the road where it was under repair. The driver continued to drive at 40 miles an hour on the wet pavement through the falling snow. At this point she lost control of the car, which began to zigzag, and, nearly colliding with another automobile, and leaving the road near the point where the barrels were, it struck and broke a telephone pole, causing the plaintiff's injury.
The trial court concluded that the manner in which the automobile was driven at the time of the accident, under the then existing circumstances, constituted a heedless and reckless disregard of the rights of others, within the meaning of the guest statute, chapter 308 of the Public Acts of 1927.
The condition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolf v. Holton
...2d 292; Stalcup v. Ruzic, 51 N.M. 377, 185 P. 2d 298; Fly v. Swink, 17 Tenn. App. 627, 69 S.W. 2d 902, 96 A.L.R. 1481; Berman v. Berman, 110 Conn. 169, 170, 147 A. 568; Gill v. Hayes, (Okla., 1940) 108 P. 2d 117; Orme v. Burr, (Fla., 1946) 25 So. 2d 870. Tire Rationing Order No. 1A was not ......
-
Williamson v. McKenna
...Note, 18 Cornell L.Q. 621, 627, comparing Ascher v. H. E. Friedman, Inc., 1929, 110 Conn. 1, 147 A. 263 and Berman v. Berman, 1929, 110 Conn. 169, 147 A. 568 with Burke v. Cook, 1923, 246 Mass. 518, 141 N.E. 585 and Manning v. Simpson, 1928, 261 Mass. 494, 159 N.E. 440. It would seem that i......
-
Woolf v. Holton
... ... P.2d 292; Stalcup v. Ruzic, 51 N. M. 377, 185 P.2d ... 298; Fly v. Swink, 17 Tenn.App. 627, 69 S.W. 2d 902, ... 96 A. L. R. 1481; Berman v. Berman, 110 Conn. 169, ... 170, 147 A. 568; Gill v. Hayes, (Okla., 1940) 108 ... P.2d 117; Orme v. Burr, (Fla., 1946) 25 So.2d 870 ... ...
-
Garrett v. Howden
...Silver v. Silver, 1928, 108 Conn. 371, 143 A. 240, 65 A.L.R. 943; Bordonaro v. Senk, 1929, 109 Conn. 428, 147 A. 136; Berman v. Berman, 1929, 110 Conn. 169, 147 A. 568; Ascher v. H. E. Friedman, Inc., 1929, 110 Conn. 1, 147 A. 263; Maher v. Fahy, 1930, 112 Conn. 76, 151 A. 318; Anderson v. ......