Catania v. Conforte

• Decision Date: 04 June 1943
• Citation: 130 Conn. 178,32 A.2d 646
• Parties: CATANIA v. CONFORTE et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

130 Conn. 178

32 A.2d 646

CATANIA

v.CONFORTE et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 4, 1943.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Bordon, Judge.

Action by Louis Catania against Henry Conforte and others for damages for injuries to person and property alleged to have been caused by negligence of defendants in the operation of an automobile driven by named defendant, brought to the Court of Common Pleas and tried to the court. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

No error.

Benjamin M. Chapnick, of New Haven, for appellants (defendants).

Nathan A. Resnick, of New Haven (Louis Scherban, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellee (plaintiff).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

BROWN, Judge.

In this action the plaintiff had judgment against the defendants for damages resulting from a collision, which occurred on the afternoon of July 14, 1941, in the junction of Norton Parkway and Moreland Road in New Haven, between the plaintiff's car and that of the defendant Mary Conforte driven by the named defendant as her agent. The defendants' appeal attacks the court's finding and conclusions. Norton Parkway which runs north and south consists of a central esplanade twenty-three feet wide covered with grass and shrubbery, lying between roadways each twenty-five feet in width. Moreland Road which runs east and west is thirty-six feet seven inches wide and intersects Norton Parkway at right angles. The edges of all of the roadways are curbed and the esplanade terminates ten feet seven inches north of the northerly curb line of Moreland Road extended. The collision occurred near the center of the intersection of the westerly roadway of the Parkway and Moreland Road as the plaintiff's car was proceeding southerly on the former and the defendant's westerly on the latter. The gist of the court's decisive conclusions, which support its judgment, is that the plaintiff had the right of way under the statute and that the defendant driver's negligence in violating it was the sole cause of the collision.

The court found these further material facts: As the plaintiff approached the intersection from the north he reduced his previous speed of from fifteen to twenty miles per hour and, shifting to second gear, proceeded through at the rate of eight miles with his left wheels on a course seven feet eight inches west of the line of the east curb of the westerly roadway. As he arrived at the south end of the esplanade, where a view of Moreland Road to his left was first obtainable, he saw the defendants' car approaching from his left at a distance of from one hundred to one hundred and fifty feet away. When the rear of the plaintiff's car had reached a point about halfway across Moreland Road, its left rear mudguard was struck by the left front part of the defendants' car, sending the plaintiff's car out of control and causing the damage complained of. While the plaintiff was proceeding as above stated, the named defendant, who could have stopped his...