Carlin v. Haas

• Decision Date: 05 May 1938
• Citation: 199 A. 430,124 Conn. 259
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CARLIN v. HAAS.

199 A. 430

124 Conn. 259

CARLIN v. HAAS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 5, 1938

Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County; John Rufus Booth Judge.

Action by Mrs. Elway F. Carlin against Paul G. Hass to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, brought to the superior court, wherein the defendant filed a counterclaim and the issues were tried to the court. Judgment was for the plaintiff on the complaint and counterclaim, and the defendant appeals.

Error and new trial ordered.

Rober W. Davis and William S. Locke, both of Hartford, and Guerin B. Carmody, of Waterbury, for appellant.

Michael V. Blansfield and Harry M. Albert, both of Waterbury for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS, JJ.

AVERY, Judge.

The facts found by the trial court so far as material to the questions of law raised upon this appeal are these: On September 12, 1936, at about 11:30 a. m., a Chevrolet sedan owned and operated by the plaintiff and a Packard coupé owned and operated by the defendant came into collision at the junction of Main and Cutler and DeForest streets (being known also as Routes U.S. 6 and Connecticut 63) in the village of Watertown. East of Main street, Route 6 is known as Cutler street and West of Main street it is known as DeForest street. Route 6 at this point is straight for over 1,350 feet, of which 625 feet lie easterly of Main street and 732 feet westerly thereof. At Main street Route 6 is practically level. At either side there is a slight down grade from west to east. Cutler street is twenty-six feet between curbs and paved. DeForest street is 32.65 feet between curbs and paved. Main street is paved for a width of 21.9 feet from the east curb. West of the pavement runs a single line of trolley track of standard width which crosses Route 6. The cement paving on Main street stops 2.65 feet east of the east trolley rail, and this strip and the road between the rails is not paved, except in the intersection of the streets. To the east of Main street and along the northerly side of Cutler street, directing westbound traffic on Cutler street, are crossroad, ‘ RR,’ and ‘ Slow’ signs, while to the west of Main street and along the southerly side of DeForest street, directing eastbound traffic on DeForest street, are crossroad and ‘ Slow’ signs.

At the time of the collision there was no other traffic on Route 6 or at the intersection. The road was dry, the weather clear and the visibility good. Before reaching the intersection the plaintiff was driving her car westerly on the northerly side of Cutler street at a speed of about twenty miles an hour intending to turn south into Main street. The defendant was driving easterly on DeForest street. The plaintiff entered the intersection at a rate of speed of ten miles an hour, changed to second speed, and proceeded straight across on her right-hand side until past the center of the intersection. Upon reaching this point she indicated by a hand signal her intention to turn to her left or south into Main street and made a slow gradual turn to her left, after first passing to the right of the center of the intersection. When the plaintiff's car was in the center of the intersection and making the turn to the south, the car of the defendant was approaching the westerly side of the intersection at a fast rate of speed but was fifty or sixty feet west thereof. Both cars continued in their respective directions until they came into collision at a point south of the center of the southwesterly quarter of the intersection and about midway between the trolley rails. The plaintiff's car traveled a distance of sixty-three feet from the point where it entered the intersection to the point of collision, while defendant's car had proceeded about two feet into the intersection at the time of collision. The plaintiff did not see the defendant's car until the instant of impact. The defendant, however, saw the ‘ crossroad’ and ‘ slow’ signs as he approached the intersection and saw the plaintiff's car when it was a considerable distance to the east thereof. He also saw the plaintiff's car as it entered the intersection and as it made its turn to the south and entered the southwest quarter of the intersection. The defendant, nevertheless, failed to reduce the speed of his car or change course but continued until the cars collided.

Upon these facts the trial court concluded that the defendant did not have the right of way over the plaintiff at the time of the collision and was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries and that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. In his appeal, the defendant has asked corrections of the finding, but an examination of the evidence certified and of the exhibits makes it clear that the finding is not susceptible of any correction by which the position of the defendant would be materially advantaged. The defendant makes three claims of law. He claims that because the collision occurred between the trolley rails, and Main street is not...