Christie v. Eager

• Decision Date: 08 May 1942
• Citation: 26 A.2d 352,120 Conn. 62
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CHRISTIE v. EAGER.

26 A.2d 352

120 Conn. 62

CHRISTIE

v. EAGER.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 8, 1942.

[Copyrighted material omitted.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Alfred C. Baldwin, Judge.

Action by Matthew Christie, Jr. against Perley Eager to recover for injuries allegedly caused by defendant's negligence.From a judgment in favor of the defendant, on a jury's verdict, the plaintiff appeals.

No error.

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

Robert L. Halloran, of Hartford, for appellant.

Cyril Coleman, of Hartford, for appellee.

BROWN, Judge.

On the evening of June 18, 1939, the defendant was driving his Ford sedan easterly on the Hutchinson River Parkway in Port Chester, New York.His wife was sitting beside him in the front seat and the plaintiff and his wife were sitting in the rear seat.In response to his wife's request that baggage which had become misplaced be rearranged, the defendant slowed down and turned off the traveled road to his right onto a semi-circular turn-out area designed as a stopping place for cars.In entering this space the car lurched, causing the plaintiff's injuries complained of.The plaintiff claimed to have proved that the lurch was due to the defendant's negligence in driving over a gutter at the edge of the traveled road, while the defendant claimed that it was due to the right rear wheel going into a depression in the grassy surface of the parking area six to eight inches in depth but not visible to him as he drove in, and that he was not negligent.The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant and the court denied the plaintiff's motion to set it aside.The plaintiff has appealed from the denial of this motion and from the judgment.

The plaintiff's principal contention upon the appeal from the denial of the motion appears to be that the jury were so unduly influenced by extraneous circumstances incident to the trial, consisting of evidence relative to insurance coverage, the relationship of the parties and the attitude displayed by them, that the verdict was manifestly the result of prejudice, partiality or mistake and should therefore be set aside.It appeared in evidence, without objection by the plaintiff, that the defendant was insured against liability by the United States Guaranty Company and that its representative had obtained signed statements from all four occupants of the car as to how the accident had occurred.It similarly appeared that the plaintiff is a brother of the defendant's wife, a fact which was not disclosed to the insurance company's investigator but was first brought out on cross-examination of the plaintiff after testimony by him indicating a deliberate attempt to conceal this relationship.The testimony of the defendant evidenced extreme reluctance to admit that the signature on the statement he had signed was his, and his testimony and that of his wife also evidenced a rather surprising lack of memory as to significant facts relating to the accident.The plaintiff's wife admitted that the signature on the statement she had signed was hers but insisted that she could not read its contents because she had not brought her glasses.

The court has found, not improperly, that the defendant's attitude on the stand was not cooperative toward counsel appearing for him, but that he did display a friendly attitude toward the plaintiff's attorney and upon leaving the witness stand smilingly put his arm around him and whispered something to him, although his subsequent testimony was that he had never even talked with this attorney before.The evidence and conduct of the parties above referred to was in no sense "extraneous" but clearly of very material significance upon the issue of credibility.On the record, the duty of the jury to consider the evidence of insurance and relationship is not open to question, and in so far as the conduct before the jury is concerned, to paraphrase what we stated in Dadio v. Dadio, 123 Conn. 88, 92,...