Camarotta v. Kling

• Decision Date: 18 December 1928
• Citation: 143 A. 881,108 Conn. 602
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CAMAROTTA v. KLING.

143 A. 881

108 Conn. 602

CAMAROTTA v. KLING.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 18, 1928

Appeal from Superior court, New Haven County; Newell Jennings Judge.

Action by Jeremiah Camarotta against Christian J. Kling to recover damages for personal injuries and damage to plaintiff's automobile alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant's agent, brought to the superior court in New Haven county, and tried to the court, Jennings, J. Judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $1,750, and appeal by the defendant. No error.

DeLancey S. Pelgrift, of Hartford, for appellant.

Bertrand B. Salzman, of New Haven, for appellee.

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

BANKS J.

The defendant seeks to have the finding corrected by striking out substantially all of the paragraphs covering matters which were in dispute and substituting numerous paragraphs of the draft finding, the result of which would leave the judgment without material support in the facts found and require a contrary conclusion to that reached by the trial court. It would be rare indeed that a finding could properly be attacked in this manner, and we have heretofore called attention to the violation of good practice and of our rules involved in such an attempt to procure the substitution of the draft finding for the entire finding of the court. Gallaher v. Southern New England Tel Co., 99 Conn. 282, 290, 121 A. 686; Palmer v. Palmer, 107 Conn. 89, 90, 139 A. 507. Our examination of the evidence fails to disclose that the court found any fact without evidence or that it failed to find any material facts which were admitted or undisputed.

This action grew out of a collision between plaintiff's and defendant's automobiles at a street intersection which the defendant's automobile was approaching from the plaintiff's right. The defendant claimed that the law required the plaintiff to yield the right of way to the defendant's operator, and assigns as error that the facts found do not support the conclusions of the court that the plaintiff's car reached the intersection before that of the defendant, that the defendant was negligent and that plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. These claimed errors are to be tested by the facts found.

The collision occurred in the intersection of Munson and Mansfield streets in New Haven. Munson street, which is about 36 feet wide, runs east and west, and intersects and crosses Mansfield street, which runs north and south and is about 30 feet wide. At the time of the collision, which occurred shortly after midnight, the plaintiff's car was being operated in a westerly direction on Munson street near the right-hand or northerly curb at a speed of between 18 and 20 miles an hour. The defendant's car was being operated in a southerly direction on Mansfield street at about 25 miles an hour. There are certain trees and shrubbery on the...