Capone v. Sloan

• Decision Date: 29 May 1962
• Citation: 149 Conn. 538,182 A.2d 414
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: James CAPONE v. Blanche K. SLOAN et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 414

182 A.2d 414

149 Conn. 538

James CAPONE v.Blanche K. SLOAN et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 29, 1962.

Vincent Villano, New Haven, for appellant(plaintiff).

Harold M. Mulvey, New Haven, for appellees(defendants).

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and ALCORN, JJ.

KING, Associate Justice.

In many respects, the claims of proof of the parties are in substantial accord.Brubaker Road, in Cheshire, runs generally north and south, and intersects from the north, but does not cross, South Brooksvale Road, which runs generally east and west.The highways are uncurbed and to some extent each flares at the intersection.The paved portion of Brubaker Road is of a uniform width of about twenty-five feet before it flares out, and that of South Brooksvale Road, about seventeen and one-half feet.Brubaker Road flares out much more than does South Brooksvale Road.The intersection is in the general form of an inverted 'T'.

At about 4:30 o'clock on the afternoon of August 23, 1957, a dry, clear day, the plaintiff was operating, in an easterly direction on South Brooksvale Road, a rack-body Dodge truck of three-quarters of a ton capacity and an overall width of eight feet.He was approaching, downgrade, the intersection with Brubaker Road.The defendantBlanche Sloan was driving a Plymouth sedan, owned by her husband, the defendantPaul Sloan, in a southerly direction on Brubaker Road.The sedan was about six feet wide.She intended to make a right turn to proceed westerly along South Brooksvale Road.A stop sign on the west side of Brubaker Road controlled traffic proceeding southerly into the intersection.At the stop sign, a bank obscures the view to the west up South Brooksvale Road.

There is some conflict in the claims of the parties as to further facts.The plaintiff's claims of proof were that the Plymouth continued in motion until the accident and that Blanche made too wide a right turn, bringing the left side of her car over the center line of South Brooksvale Road and forcing the plaintiff suddenly to swing his truck to the right in an attempt to avoid hitting the Plymouth.The truck went up a bank and tipped over on its left side.The defendants' claims of proof were that after stopping at the stop sign Blanche inched her car forward until she could see to her left, or east, along South Brooksvale Road, and then again inched her car forward until she could see to the right, or west, along that highway; that she then saw the plaintiff's truck coming easterly, downhill, at 35 to 40 miles an hour, on the north (its left) side of South Brooksvale Road about 150 feet away; that she immediately stopped her car; that it remained stopped until after the accident; and that less than one-half of her car had passed the northerly edge of South Brooksvale Road extended across Brubaker Road.Both parties claim that at that time the Plymouth was turned slightly westward, at an angle of about forty-five degrees.The defendants claim that no part of the Plymouth had passed to the south of the center line of South Brooksvale Road, but the plaintiff claims that after the accident the Plymouth was partially south of that line.If the truck hit the car, the impact was slight.

The changes sought in the finding are not material in our view of this case.An attack on a finding of an adversary's claims of proof in a jury case is often, if not generally, unwarranted, and it was unwarranted here.Franks v. Lockwood, 146 Conn. 273, 275, 150 A.2d 215.

The plaintiff, who is the appellant, assigns error in the failure of the court to incorporate in the charge certain requested instructions.One such instruction was that '[n]o person shall move a vehicle which is stopped, standing or parked unless such movement can be made with reasonable safety,' and was based on § 14-243 of the General Statutes.The plaintiff, in a request to charge based on this statute, was required to employ greater specificity than a mere paraphrase of certain portions of the statute without a hint of their claimed applicability to, or operative effect on, the case.Practice Book, § 153;Lowell v. Daly, 148 Conn. 266, 269, 169 A.2d 888.

Another requested instruction, citing Mathis v. Bzdula, 122 Conn. 202, 206, 188 A. 264, as support, was that a mathematical formula is not controlling in the determination of the area of an intersection, but regard must be had for the courses which traffic passing in various directions may be expected to take.There was nothing in the claims of proof of either party which suggested any reason why the plaintiff should so operate his truck that any part of it remained north of the center line of South Brooksvale Road or why the defendant Blanche should so make her right turn as to bring any part of her car south of that center line.While the claims of proof included one that Brubaker Road flared out several feet at the intersection, the crucial question was not the area of the intersection but the position of the two cars with respect to the center line of South Brooksvale Road.The court charged that the term 'intersection' means the space common to 'the traveled portions, not including clearly defined shoulders, of the two intersecting highways.'This definition was not inaccurate, and although the charge would have been improved had the requested instruction been given with some further information as to the location of the center lines and shoulders of the highways within the intersection, the instruction requested, without amplification, would have been too general to do otherwise than confuse the jury.Decker v. Roberts, 126 Conn. 478, 481, 12 A.2d 541.The court did charge that the width of South Brooksvale Road was nineteen feet at the intersection and that its center line would be one-half of that distance from each shoulder.No claim is made that the width used by the court was inaccurate.The jury therefore had the information they needed for the location of the center line.The Mathis case was factually unusual and...