Budaj v. Connecticut Co.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1928 |
| Citation | 108 Conn. 474,143 A. 527 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BUDAJ v. CONNECTICUT CO. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Thomas J Molloy, Judge.
Action by Jan J. Budaj against the Connecticut Company to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence, brought to the court of common pleas of Hartford county, and tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Error, and a new trial ordered.
James W. Carpenter, of Hartford, for appellant.
William M. Harney, of Hartford, for appellee.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.
The defendant appeals from the denial of its motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. The plaintiff was struck by the defendant's trolley car as he was about to enter an automobile which was standing from three to five feet from the rails of the trolley tracks. The plaintiff had crossed from the opposite side of the street, and passed around the rear end of the automobile for the purpose of entering it on the side which was nearest the trolley tracks. The trolley car which struck him had stopped at a station which was about 25 feet back of the standing automobile, and there was an uninterrupted view for 500 feet from the point where the automobile stood in the direction from which the trolley car was approaching. It was night, and the lights within the trolley car were lighted and the incandescent headlight, but not the searchlight. These were facts as to which, upon the evidence offered by both parties, there could be no real dispute. The plaintiff testified that before passing to the rear of the automobile he looked in the direction from which the trolley car was approaching and saw nothing. It is obvious that if he had looked he could not have failed to see the trolley car. He either failed to look, or, if he looked, failed to exercise reasonable care in failing, as he passed in the rear of the automobile, to see the trolley car which either then stood at the station about 25 feet away or was approaching between that point and the point where the plaintiff was passing in the rear of the automobile. Where testimony is thus in conflict with indisputable physical facts, the facts demonstrate that the testimony is either intentionally or unintentionally untrue, and leave no real question of conflict of evidence for the jury concerning which reasonable minds could reasonably differ. Gianotta v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 98 Conn. 743, 744, 120 A. 560; Richard v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 104 Conn. 229, 232, 132 A. 451; Smart v. Bissonette, 106 Conn. 447, 449, 138 A. 365.
The verdict in favor of the plaintiff cannot therefore be supported unless the evidence furnishes a reasonable basis for the aplication of the so-called last clear chance doctrine, thereby relegating the plaintiff's negligence from the position of proximate cause to that of a remote cause. The burden of establishing the conditions required to put this doctrine into operation rested upon the plaintiff. He was bound to produce evidence furnishing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sherman, 13649
...real question of conflict of evidence for the jury concerning which reasonable minds could reasonably differ." Budaj v. Connecticut Co., 108 Conn. 474, 476, 143 A. 527 (1928).' State v. Avcollie, supra, 178 Conn. [at] 457 ." Id., at 268, 604 A.2d In State v. Hammond, supra, 221 Conn. at 264......
-
Correnti v. Catino
...160 A. 892 115 Conn. 213 CORRENTI v. CATINO. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.June 21, 1932 ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Arthur F. Ells, Judge ... Action ... by Frank Correnti ... 607; Curtis v. Bristol & Plainville Electric Co., ... 102 Conn. 238, 128 A. 517; Oddwyez v. Connecticut ... Co., 108 Conn. 71, 142 A. 406; Budaj v. Connecticut ... Co., 108 Conn. 474, 476, 143 A. 527 ... The ... conditions necessary for the application of the doctrine are ... ...
-
Correnti v. Catino
...& Plainville Electric Co., 102 Conn. 238, 128 A. 517; Oddwycz v. Connecticut Co., 108 Conn. 71, 142 A. 406; Budaj v. Connecticut Co., 108 Conn. 474, 476, 143 A. 527. The conditions necessary for the application of the doctrine are stated in Fine v. Connecticut Co., 92 Conn. 626, 631, 103 A.......
-
State v. Hammond, 14354
... Page 793 ... 604 A.2d 793 ... 221 Conn. 264 ... STATE of Connecticut ... Ricky C. HAMMOND ... No. 14354 ... Supreme Court of Connecticut ... Argued Nov. 5, 1991 ... Decided Feb. 25, 1992 ... Page 794 ... untrue, and leave no real question of conflict of evidence for the jury concerning which reasonable minds could reasonably differ.' Budaj v. Connecticut Co., 108 Conn. 474, 476, 143 A. 527 (1928)." State v. Avcollie, supra, 178 Conn. at 457, 423 A.2d 118. We have found the requisite ... ...