Clark v. Conn. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1945
• Citation: 132 Conn. 400,44 A.2d 706
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CLARK v. CONNECTICUT CO. et al.

132 Conn. 400

44 A.2d 706

CLARK

v.CONNECTICUT CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 8, 1945.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Alcorn, Judge.

Action by Noreilda Clark against the Connecticut Company and others to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendants, brought to the Superior Court and tried to the court. Judgment for defendants and appeal by plaintiff.

No error.

Morton E. Cole, Charles E. Mahoney, and Cyril Cole, all of Hartford, for appellant.

Martin E. Gormley, of New Haven, for appellee Beaupre.

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

DICKENSON, Judge.

The plaintiff, a passenger on a Connecticut Company bus, was injured because of its sudden stop to avoid collision with a truck which crossed its path. In an action against the Connecticut Company and the alleged owner of the truck, judgment was rendered for both defendants. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment in favor of the truck owner, to whom we shall hereafter refer as the defendant.

The case turned upon the identification of the truck involved in the incident, and the court held that it had not been established. The court found that the bus, a red refrigerator car and a third vehicle going north were halted, abreast of one another, by the signal of a traffic officer at the intersection of Main and Willow Streets in East Hartford. The bus was the most easterly vehicle, and the refrigerator truck was at its left. It was shortly after 8 a.m., traffic was heavy and other vehicles were lined up on Main Street for some distance behind the three vehicles. When the officer signaled northbound traffic to proceed, the red truck suddenly turned to its right in front of the bus to enter Willow Street. The bus, which had also started, was brought to a sudden stop. The truck proceeded down Willow Street and the bus resumed its course up Main Street. There was no collision and no police investigation. No one observed the registration number of the truck and the only description of it was that it was a red refrigerator truck. The defendant received no notice that its truck was involved in the incident until a month after it had occurred. Several other red refrigerator trucks, belonging to other owners than the defendant, daily traveled the same route at about the same time. One of the defendant's red refrigerator trucks made a trip to factory cafeterias on Willow Street three days a week at about 8 a.m., and one made such a trip on the morning in question. These facts are not disputed.

The traffic officer, whom the court found to be a trained and experienced policeman, testified that when he signaled for the northbound traffic to proceed he saw a red truck and the Connecticut Company bus, that he turned his head to the north to observe southbound traffic, and that when he turned back the bus had stopped and he saw the red truck going down Willow Street. He stated that he recognized the truck, as he saw it every morning; that he did not knew its owner; but that it was an icecream truck and when not in operation was kept in a yard on North Main Street. The defendant later testified that he kept two red refrigerator trucks and another red truck in this yard part of the time. The trial court found that at the time of the incident the traffic officer paid no particular attention to the truck, and concluded that it was not identified as the defendant's truck. The plaintiff attacks this finding and conclusion, claiming that the identification of the...