Caviote v. Shea
| Citation | 165 A. 788,116 Conn. 569 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1933 |
| Parties | COVIOTE v. SHEA et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John Richard Booth Judge.
Action by Carmela Caviote, administratrix, against Patrick F. Shea and another, to recover for the death of the plaintiff's decedent in an automobile collision, brought to the superior court and tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant bartolomo Valente, and in favor of the defendant Shea: and appeal by the plaintiff, and by the defendant Valente.
No error on defendant Valente's appeal; error on plaintiff's appeal, and new trial ordered against defendant Shea.
Charles A. Harrison and Milton G. Harrison, both of New Haven, for appellant Caviote.
Philip Troup, of New Haven, for appellant Valente.
J Warren Upson and Lawrence L. Lewis, both of Waterbury, for appellee Shea.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
The plaintiff brought this action as administratrix of the estate of Angelina Cinque deceased, against Patrick F. Shea and Bartolomo Valente. In her complaint, she set forth that about 10 o'clock in the evening of November 23, 1931, her intestate was riding as a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by Valente in a easterly direction along the Milford turnpike in the town of Orange; and that at a point on the highway near the Paragon Garage the automobile collided with a truck owned by the defendant Shea, which was headed in the same direction and parked on the southerly side of the highway. She alleged that the driver for defendant Shea was negligent in parking the truck upon the highway without proper lights and not properly guarded under the conditions then and there existing. She alleged that the defendant Valente was operating the automobile, in which her intestate was riding as a passenger, heedlessly and with reckless disregard of the rights of her intestate, in that he was operating it at an excessive rate of speed and without proper lookout. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant Shea and against Valente.
From the judgment entered on the verdict, the plaintiff has appealed, as has also the defendant Valente. In the plaintiff's appeal, errors are claimed in the charge of the court. It is necessary to consider only one of the errors assigned by her. From the finding, it appears that the plaintiff claims to have shown by the evidence that, at the time of the accident, there were unusual conditions. It was dark, and a very heavy fog renderel travel dangerous. The Milford turnpike is much traveled; the accident occurred at the bottom of a slight up grade; there is a hard shoulder on the south side of the traveled portion about 7 to 9 feet in width; and there was no artificial illumination at that point. The defendant Shea's truck was approximately 7 1/2 feet wide, and loaded with planos, which protruded beyond the rear for a distance of about 2 1/2 to 3 feet. It was entirely covered with a dark brown or gray material which blended with the surrounding fog and rendered it extremely difficult to distinguish. A single tail-light was attached underneath the body on a bracket which hung about 4 feet 10 inches 2 1/2 feet above the ground. The tail-light was covered with road dirt, and was so placed that the light from it was not visible; the battery was run down, so that the lights were dim; and the matting and canvas were so placed over the rear that any possible light or warning from the tail-light was completely covered or obscured. The vehicle had been parked on the highway for about fifteen minutes prior to the accident in such manner that it was entirely upon the concrete portion, except a part of the right rear dual wheel, which was partly upon the concrete and partly upon the shoulder. At no time, while the truck was parked, did the defendant Shea attempt to drive it of onto the shoulder of the road, or give any warning to travelers of its presence; and he failed to display any light on the rear of it visible to travelers approaching it from that direction.
The evidence offered by Shea disputed these claims of the plaintiff in many particulars. Shea claimed to have proved that the truck was so parked that it was entirely off the concrete and upon the shoulder of the road, except the left half of the rear wheel, which was on the southerly edge of the concrete: that the truck was parked on the opposite side of the highway, and only a short distance from the Paragon Garage; that the locality was illuminated by electric...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alvarez v. New Haven Register, Inc.
...liability is based upon the concept that all tortfeasors are independently at fault for their own wrongful acts. Caviote v. Shea, 116 Conn. 569, 575, 165 A. 788 (1933). Their liability is direct because they actually contributed to the injury. At common law, an individual injured by the neg......
-
Cimino v. Yale University
...12(b)(6). It is well established under Connecticut law that there is no contribution among joint tortfeasors. Caviote v. Shea, 116 Conn. 569, 165 A. 788 (1933); Rose v. Heisler, 118 Conn. 632, 174 A. 66 (1934). See Preferred Accident Ins. Co. v. Musante, Berman & Steinberg Co., 133 Conn. 53......
-
Dennler v. Dodge Transfer Corporation
...can be no contribution or indemnification between joint tort-feasors. Rose v. Heisler, 118 Conn. 632, 174 A. 66 (1934); Caviote v. Shea, 116 Conn. 569, 165 A. 788 (1933); Wise v. Berger, 103 Conn. 29, 130 A. 76 (1925). This is so because the courts will not give relief to a wrongdoer. Where......
-
Kaplan v. Merberg Wrecking Corp.
...claimed primary negligence. Ordinarily there is no right of indemnity or contribution between joint tort-feasors. Caviote v. Shea, 116 Conn. 569, 575, 165 A. 788. But this rule has certain exceptions, and the plaintiffs claim that the court was in error in failing to decide that they had br......