Carbone v. Krott
| Decision Date | 01 March 1924 |
| Citation | 123 A. 903,100 Conn. 414 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CARBONE v. KROTT ET AL. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Newell Jennings Judge.
Action by John Carbone against William Krott and another. Judgment of nonsuit as to defendant Edward Krott and for plaintiff against named defendant, and the latter appeals. No error.
The action is to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants in the operation of an automobile, brought to the superior court, at Waterbury, in New Haven county, tried to the court before Jennings, J. Judgment of nonsuit as to the defendant Edward Krott, and for the plaintiff for $5,338.77 against the defendant William Krott, and appeal by the defendant.
William J. McKenna and Joseph V. Esposito, both of New Haven for appellant William Krott.
Albert W. Cretella, of New Haven, and Frank P. McEvoy, of Waterbury for appellee.
The motion of the appellant for a correction of the finding is without merit. There was not only evidence, but as it seems to us abundant evidence, to support the finding of the facts set forth in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 15 of the finding, which the appellant moved to have stricken out. This conclusion is reached from an examination of the exhibits, from the evidence filed with the defendant's exceptions to the finding, and the additional transcripts from the evidence certified by the trial judge.
The finding sets forth, and to this part of the finding the defendant did not except, that as the plaintiff started from the westerly side of Dixwell avenue to walk across the street to a Ford car parked on the easterly side facing north, he looked to the south and saw no car approaching. His failure to see the defendant's car was doubtless because of the distance it was from him at that moment, and the fact, as the plaintiff testified, that, when he did see it, it was approaching without lights and without the sounding of the horn. The accident occurred shortly after 10 o'clock at night. The evidence certified in the record supports the conclusions of the trial court set forth in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the finding, that when the plaintiff reached the first of the double set of trolley tracks he again looked south and for the first time saw the automobile driven by the defendant William Krott approaching from the south at about 30 miles an hour; that the plaintiff reasonably assumed the defendant would pass in his (the plaintiff's) rear, and that the prudent thing for him to do was to proceed towards the Ford car; that when 2 or 3 feet from the Ford car and about 8 feet from the easterly curb, he was struck by the right-hand bumper and fender of the automobile...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Correnti v. Catino
... ... It is also to be ... remembered that the application of the doctrine presupposes ... that the plaintiff has been guilty of negligence. Carbone ... v. Krott, 100 Conn. 414, 123 A. 903; Notarfrancesco ... v. Smith, 105 Conn. 49, 57, 134 A. 151. If upon the ... evidence the only claims of ... ...
-
Frisbie v. Schinto
...plaintiff has been guilty of negligence." Correnti v. Catine, 115 Conn. 213, 216; Montarfrancesco v. Smith, 105 Conn. 49, 57; Carbone v. Erott, 100 Conn. 414. If upon the evidence the only claims of proof reasonably open to acceptance are that the plaintiff .... was negligent and his neglig......
-
Vignone v. Pierce & Norton Co. Inc.
...sense that there is no occasion to invoke it unleses such negligence has been established. Kinderavich v. Palmer, supra; Carbone v. Krott, 100 Conn. 414, 416, 123 A. 903; Notarfrancesco v. Smith, 105 Conn. 49, 57, 134 A. 151. The burden of proof upon the issue of such negligence is not, gen......