Bordonaro v. Senk

Citation147 A. 136,109 Conn. 428
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Decision Date10 July 1929
PartiesBORDONARO v. SENK.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Allyn L. Brown, Judge.

Action by Natalie Bordonaro against Stanley Senk to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

Jacob Schwolsky, of Hartford, S. Gerald Casale, of New Britain, and Edward J. Myers, of Hartford, for appellant.

Richard H. Deming, of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.

WHEELER, C.J.

The injuries for which the plaintiff sues arose out of a collision between a truck and an automobile driven by the defendant in which the plaintiff was a nonpaying guest. The appeal from the denial of the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict cannot be sustained. There was a decided conflict in the evidence offered by the parties; the jury might reasonably have found in favor of the defendant. The defendant's case is not in conflict with the indisputable physical facts, as the plaintiff contends; hence the defendant's case does not fall within Budaj v. Conn Co., 108 Conn. 474, 476, 143 A. 527.

The plaintiff's cause of action was dependent upon the bringing of it within the terms of the so-called guest statute, chapter 308 of the Public Acts of 1927, which provides: " No person transported by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle as his guest without payment for such transportation shall have a cause of action for damages against such owner or operator for injury, death or loss, in case of accident, unless such accident shall have been intentional on the part of said owner or operator or caused by his heedlessness or his reckless disregard of the rights of others." Section 1. The additional appeal is based upon claimed errors in the charge, and they all arise out of the construction given the guest statute by the trial court. One of the criticisms of the charge is the construction accorded to the word " heedlessness." We pointed out in Silver v. Silver, 108 Conn. 371, 375, 143 A. 240, 242, that this word standing by itself is a synonym of carelessness, and construed alone, " it connotes a lack of care substantially identical with that indicated by the word ‘ negligence.’ " Charging one with careless conduct is equivalent to charging him with a lack of ordinary care. We also held that, if heedlessness in this connection meant merely a lack of ordinary care, the act would have reaffirmed our common law, and that the legislative intention is clearly indicated in the title of the act as well as in the first clause of the first section of the act to be, to change the existing law. We finally dispose of this claimed construction of " heedlessness" by saying: " We do not think that is a sensible construction of the statute." Since this word cannot be construed by itself or with its ordinary meaning, we construe it " with due regard to its context and the meaning of the entire phrase or sentence in which it appears." The framers of the statute undoubtedly used the noun " heedlessness" in place of the adjective " heedless" and the word " or" for " and." The phrase " or caused by his heedlessness or his reckless disregard of the rights of others" meets the legislative intention when it is construed to read, or caused by his heedless and his reckless disregard of the rights of others.

The liability of the owner or operator of a motor vehicle to his nonpaying guest is limited to two classes, as we state in Silver v. Silver, supra: First, when the accident was caused by the intentional act or conduct of the owner or operator. Intentional as used in this connection connotes the causing of the act or conduct purposely, willfully, or designedly. Second, when the accident was caused by the heedless and reckless disregard of the rights of others by the act or conduct of the owner or operator. Heedless in this connection means careless; it does not add to the significance or the characterization or the force of the act or conduct done in reckless disregard of the rights of others by the owner or operator. Act or conduct in reckless disregard of the rights of others is improper or wrongful conduct, and constitutes wanton misconduct, evincing a reckless indifference to consequences to the life, or limb, or health, or reputation or property rights of another.

We define...

To continue reading

Request your trial
143 cases
  • Arrow Lakes Dairy, Inc. v. Gill
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • December 27, 1961
    ...conjunctive "and" as they have done in Bania v. Town of New Hartford, 138 Conn. 172, 176, 83 A.2d 165 (1951); and in Bordonaro v. Senk, 109 Conn. 428, 430, 147 A. 136 (1929) no fragment of constitutional doubt might remain. A similar result could be reached by declaring that portion of the ......
  • Siesseger v. Puth
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • October 27, 1931
    ...to the consequences of action and constitutes wanton misconduct. Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 199, 139 A. 698;Bordonaro v. Senk [109 Conn. 428, 147 A. 136] supra. Conduct arising from momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or from an error of judgment, does not indicate a reckles......
  • Wolf v. Holton
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 3, 1949
    ...instruction "D." 5 Am. Jur., Automobiles, Sec. 242, p. 636; Gill v. Hayes, (Oklahoma) (1940) 108 Pac. 2d 117; Bordonaro v. Senk, (1929) 109 Conn. 428, 147 Atl. 136. Boyle G. Clark, William H. Becker, Robert C. Smith, Jr., and Clark, Boggs, Peterson & Becker for The trial court did not err i......
  • Williamson v. McKenna
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • August 10, 1960
    ...64-24-1. Grillo v. Bonauito, 1937, 123 Conn. 226, 193 A. 730; Vanderkruik v. Mitchell, 1934, 118 Conn. 625, 173 A. 900; Bordonaro v. Senk, 1928, 109 Conn. 428, 147 A. 136; De Blassie v. McCrory, 1956, 60 N.M. 490, 292 P.2d 786; Fowler v. Franklin, 1954, 58 N.M. 254, 270 P.2d 389; Smith v. M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT