Brody v. Dickie

• Decision Date: 13 December 1923
• Citation: 100 Conn. 189,122 A. 908
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BRODY v. DICKIE.

122 A. 908

100 Conn. 189

BRODY v. DICKIE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 13, 1923

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; George E. Hinman Judge.

Action by Charles S. Brody, administrator, against James Dickie. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Plaintiff's intestate was a passenger on a certain automobile, which was being towed by another automobile, which were proceeding in an easterly direction on Maplewood avenue, in the city of Bridgeport. The driver of the towing car intended to turn in a northerly direction from Maplewood avenue onto Howard avenue. Defendant, by his servant, was operating an automobile truck, heavily loaded, on Maplewood avenue, in a westerly direction. Plaintiff's intestate and a companion named Raski were riding on the right running board of the towed car as it was being towed, the towing car being a Cadillac and the towed car being an Imperial. The Cadillac car, together with the Imperial automobile, had stopped near the corner of Maplewood and Howard avenues, and then proceeded easterly along Maplewood avenue. At the intersection of Maplewood and Howard avenues the Cadillac car, towing the Imperial car, turned in a northerly direction onto Howard avenue. No warning or signal was given of the intention to turn the cars to their left into Howard Avenue. Defendant's truck was approaching from the right of the Cadillac and Imperial cars as they so turned. Both of the cars and defendant's truck arrived at the intersection of the two streets at substantially the same time. The Cadillac and Imperial cars were traveling siowly the Cadillac being in second gear. Defendant's truck just before reaching the intersection was traveling at about 10 miles an hour. In turning the corner the Cadillac car was driven to the left of the center of the intersection, and the Imperial car followed still further to the left and near the curb. When defendant's driver saw the two cars turning into Howard avenue he did not blow his horn or change his course, which was straight along the northerly (his right) side of Maplewood avenue, but he reduced the speed of his truck to 6 or 8 miles an hour. When the Imperial car was near the center of Maplewood avenue it appeared to Raski, from the position of the car on which he was riding, and the course in which the truck was traveling, that the truck would collide with the Imperial car, and he jumped off the running board and ran around the rear of the car to the sidewalk, shouting to plaintiff's intestate to " look out." Defendant's driver did not see Raski jump or run, but when the Imperial car had turned farther into Howard avenue he saw plaintiff's intestate standing on the running board, clinging to a bow of the top. There was nothing in the situation, appearance, or conduct of plaintiff's intestate from the time defendant's driver saw him until he jumped which indicated to the driver an intention on the part of plaintiff's intestate to jump from or leave the running board of the car. A few moments after Raski jumped and as the rear end of the Imperial car was near the northerly line of Maplewood avenue, and had passed a short distance out of the path of defendant's car, as it was then traveling, plaintiff's intestate jumped from the running board toward the east, in front of and not more than 6 or 7 feet ahead of, defendant's truck. Defendant's driver, when he saw plaintiff's intestate jump, turned his car sharply to the left and applied the brake, but the front of the car struck plaintiff's intestate, one of the wheels ran over him and he thereby sustained injuries from which he died soon after. Defendant's truck...