Bryll v. Bryll

• Decision Date: 19 April 1932
• Citation: Bryll v. Bryll, 114 Conn. 668, 159 A. 884 (Conn. 1932)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BRYLL v. BRYLL.

159 A. 884

114 Conn. 668

BRYLL v. BRYLL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 19, 1932

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Earnest C. Simpson Judge.

Action by Jennie Bryll against Joseph Bryll to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant, brought to the superior court and tried to the jury.Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

No error.

John C. Blackall and Charles H. Blackall, both of Hartford, for appellant.

Jacob Berman, of Hartford, for appellee.

HINMAN, J.

The defendant driving a sedan owned by his father was returning from Bloomfield to the family home in Windsor, having as a guest the plaintiff, his sister aged three years, who was standing in the front seat of the car.He started to turn left from Blue Hills avenue into aside street when, as he crossed trolley tracks in the center of the avenue, the car started to " shimmy,"he lost control of it, and it turned diagonally across the side of the road on which he had been driving.He attempted to use the foot brake, but the pedal went to the floor without producing any effect; he then reached to his right for the emergency brake lever, but in that car it was located at his left, and before he applied it the car ran a distance variously estimated at from forty to seventy feet and collided with a pole.The plaintiff was thrown forward against the windshield by the impact and injured.The only direct testimony as to the rate of speed was that of the defendant that he had been driving twenty to twenty-five miles per hour, but he claimed to have slackened somewhat in preparation for the turn.By the force of the collision the pole, which was forty feet long, thirty-four inches in circumference and set six feet in the ground was moved several inches at the base and cracked at about one-third of its height above the ground.The appeal relates only to the denial of the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict, and the inquiry is: Could the jury reasonably find upon the evidence that the defendant was operating the car in such a manner as to render him liable to the plaintiff under the " guest statute" ?Gen. St. § 1628.In this action the plaintiff could not rely upon negligence in the care and maintenance of the automobile and its mechanical equipment alone, but must show that her injuries were caused by the operation of the car by the defendant in heedless or reckless disregard of her rights.Romansky v Cestaro,109 Conn. 654, 660, 145 A. 156: Silver...