Bradley v. Niemann
| Decision Date | 03 July 1950 |
| Parties | BRADLEY v. NIEMANN (two cases). Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
David R. Lessler, Bridgeport, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
James W. Carpenter, Hartford, for the appellee (defendant).
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
The car driven by one plaintiff in which the other was riding as a passenger was run into from the rear by a car driven by the defendant. Personal injuries and property damage were claimed. The plaintiffs appealed from the denial of their motions to set aside the defendant's verdicts and from the judgments. They were represented on appeal by an attorney other than the one who tried the case.
The jury reasonably could have found that both cars were proceeding slowly westerly on the Boston Post Road in Stamford on October 7, 1945, about 9 p. m. The weather was clear and the pavement dry. A car turned from the north curb into the line of traffic just ahead of the plaintiffs' car. The latter made a sudden stop. The defendant applied his brakes and reduced his speed to four miles an hour but bumped the plaintiffs' car in the rear.
The claims of negligence made by the plaintiffs raised questions of fact to be determined on conflicting evidence. Their claim that the plea of guilty by the defendant to a criminal charge of reckless driving made as a result of the accident conclusively established his negligence is not valid. Moulin v. Bergeron, 135 Conn. 443, 445, 65 A.2d 478. That plea, entered in another trial was, for the purposes of the cases at bar, merely an admission tending to prove negligence. Perry v. Simpson Waterproof Mfg. Co., 40 Conn. 313, 317. The verdicts were general. Therefore, 'the legal presumption is that the jury found all the issues for the defendant.' Beauton v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 125 Conn. 76, 83, 3 A.2d 315, 319. The jury could reasonably have found for the defendant on the issue of his negligence, and this would suffice to support the verdicts. The denial of the motions to set them aside was justified.
The purpose of the plaintiffs' appeals from the judgments was stated to be to furnish an additional ground of error in the denial of the motions. The appeals were based on claimed error in that portion of the charge in which the trial court said: 'And of course if you should find the plaintiff driver to have been guilty of contributory negligence, his negligence would bar not only his own recovery but the recovery of his wife since she was the owner of the car and riding with him and he was driving as her agent.' The plaintiffs' brief shows...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northeast Builders Supply & Home Centers, LLC v. RMM Consulting, LLC
... ... Perry v. Simpson Manufacturing Co., 40 Conn. 313, ... 317 (1873), cf. Bradley v. Newman, 137 Conn. 81, 83 ... (1950) ... [ 17 ] The defendant, Morrill, subsequently ... amended her bankruptcy counterclaim ... ...
-
Gosselin v. Perry
...§ 14-240(a). That plea of guilty was an admission of negligence. Dumond v. Denehy, 145 Conn. 88, 89-90, 139 A.2d 58; Bradley v. Niemann, 137 Conn. 81, 83, 74 A.2d 876. In addition, the plaintiffs offered evidence to prove and claimed to have proved that the defendant said to one of the plai......
-
Jacobs v. Goodspeed
...was an admission tending to prove his negligence; Flynn v. Raccuia, 146 Conn. 210, 213, 148 A.2d 763 (1959); Bradley v. Niemann, 137 Conn. 81, 83, 74 A.2d 876 (1950); as was his statement in his motor vehicle report. Jacobs v. Connecticut Co., 137 Conn. 189, 191, 75 A.2d 427 (1950); Ezzo v.......
-
Pollack v. Howe
...cause were submitted to them. The general verdict imports that these issues were found in favor of the defendants. Bradley v. Niemann, 137 Conn. 81, 83, 74 A.2d 876. There is nothing in the record to show that they were other than questions of fact for determination by the jury. Whether the......