Cashman v. Terminal Taxi Co.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1944 |
| Citation | 131 Conn. 31,37 A.2d 613 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CASHMAN v. TERMINAL TAXI CO. et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Wynne, Judge.
Action by James J. Cashman, Jr., against Terminal Taxi Company and another to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendants. A verdict and judgment were returned for defendants, and the plaintiff appeals.
Error and new trial ordered.
Bernard P. Kopkind and Clarence A. Hadden, both of New Haven (William L. Hadden and Daniel Pouzzner, both of New Haven, on the brief), for appellee (plaintiff).
Francis J. Moran and John E. McNerney, both of New Haven, for appellees (defendants).
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.
This is an action by a pedestrian to recover damages for injuries sustained when he was struck by a taxicab owned by one defendant and operated by McVeigh, the other defendant. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants and the plaintiff appealed, claiming error in two rulings on evidence and in the charge.
The plaintiff was struck while walking in a northerly direction across Elm Street in New Haven at or near its intersection with York Street at about 1 o'clock in the morning. The plaintiff offered evidence that the taxicab proceeded northerly on College Street, stopped at the intersection of Elm Street and, when the traffic light there changed to green, turned left and proceeded westerly on Elm Street; that when the cab turned into Elm Street the traffic light at Elm and York Streets, about twelve hundred feet westerly, was green; that McVeigh drove at a high rate of speed to reach York Street before the light turned red; and that excessive speed at that intersection was a principal cause of the accident.
The plaintiff produced as a witness in chief a police officer who testified that shortly after the accident McVeigh told him how it happened: That he stopped the cab at the corner of College and Elm Streets, that when the traffic light there changed from red to green he turned into Elm Street, maintained a speed of twenty-five miles an hour, and passed through the intersection of Elm and York Streets while the traffic light was green. The witness asked McVeigh to show him how he had driven the cab, and McVeigh did so. The defendants objected to testimony as to what McVeigh did during this demonstration, on the ground that it was an experiment. The plaintiff claimed it as an admission. The court excluded the testimony.
There is no logical reason for regarding a demonstration by a party of what he did as an ‘experiment,’ as that word is used in Wray v. Fairfield Amusement Co., 126...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zoarski, In re
...rule]. See O'Brien v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 143 Conn. 25, 29-30, 119 A. [2d] 329 (1955); Cashman v. Terminal Taxi Co., 131 Conn. 31, 33, 37 A.2d 613 (1944); Hubbard v. Schlump, 106 Conn. 216, 219, 137 A. 644 (1927)." C. Tait & J. LaPlante, Connecticut Evidence (2d Ed.1988)......
-
Jessica B., In re
... ... John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 143 Conn. 25, 29-30, 119 A.2d 329 (1955); Cashman v. Terminal Taxi Co., 131 Conn. 31, 33, 37 A.2d 613 (1944); C. Tait & J. LaPlante, Connecticut ... ...
-
Casalo v. Claro
... ... the plaintiff was claiming was an admission by conduct, under the rule of cases such as Cashman v. Terminal Taxi Co., 131 Conn. 31, 33, 37 A.2d 613; Braithwaite v. Lee, 125 Conn. 10, 15, 2 A.2d ... ...
-
Swenson v. Sawoska, 13787
... ... O'Brien v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 143 Conn. 25, 30, 119 A.2d 329 (1955); Cashman v. Terminal Taxi Co., 131 Conn. 31, 33, 37 A.2d 613 (1944). If the defendant had made the ... ...