Connelly v. Deconinck
| Decision Date | 01 June 1931 |
| Citation | 155 A. 231,113 Conn. 237 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CONNELLY v. DECONINCK. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Harry J Beardsley, Judge.
Action by Margaret Connelly against George H. Deconinck to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the heedless and reckless disregard of the rights of others by one operating an automobile leased from the defendant. Tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendant.
No error.
The appellee filed a motion for an order directing the printing of a certain portion of the draft finding which was denied.
William T. Keavney, Jr., and John H. Cassidy, both of Waterbury, for appellant.
William B. Fitzgerald, of Waterbury, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.
In this action the plaintiff alleged that she suffered certain injuries while riding as the guest of Andrew J. Healey in an automobile " rented and leased" by him from the defendant, by reason of his heedless and reckless misconduct. The claims of proof of the parties show that she offered evidence that she was riding in the automobile as Healey's guest, and that no contrary evidence was offered. The trial court was therefore justified in treating this as an undisputed fact. Her right to recover from the defendant depends upon her proof of facts establishing such misconduct on the part of Healey as would satisfy the requirements of the so-called " guest statute," chapter 308 of the Public Acts of 1927 (section 1628 of the Revision of 1930), and the fact that Healey had hired the car of the defendant within the terms of chapter 256 of the Public Acts of 1929 (section 1627 of the Revision of 1930). The defendant complains of the failure to give four requests to charge. Of these the first two concern matters sufficiently covered in the charge as given, the third was not couched in such a form as to require the trial court to give it, and the fourth was, so far as this record shows, sufficiently complied, with. The charge as given lacked something in clarity, and the trial court should not have used the term negligence as applied to the claimed misconduct of Healey, but, reading the instructions as a whole, we are satisfied that the jury could not have failed to get a sufficiently clear understanding of the meaning and effect of the " guest statute" or have been misled into adopting any test which would make the defendant's liability depend upon a lower degree of misconduct on Healey's part than is required by the statute. There was no reversible error committed upon the trial of the case.
The defendant, after verdict, moved in arrest of judgment upon the ground that the statute, chapter 256 of the Public Acts of 1929, which makes liable one who lets an automobile for hire and upon which the plaintiff's right of recovery in this action must rest, is unconstitutional. The statute provides: " Any person renting or leasing to another any motor vehicle owned by him shall be liable for any damage to any person or property caused by the operation of such motor vehicle while so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
...terms of the contract of rental. Levy v. Daniels' U-Drive Auto Renting Co., 108 Conn. 333, 336, 143 A. 163 [1928]; Connelly v. Deconinck, 113 Conn. 237, 240, 155 A. 231 [1931]; Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Kohn Bros. Tobacco Co., 141 Conn. 539, 542, 107 A.2d 406 [1954]." (Empha......
-
Damiani v. Steiner, No. 483515 (CT 7/11/2005)
...of the statute was to impose a liability akin in its nature to that of a principal for the acts of his agent.' Connelly v. Deconinck, 113 Conn. 237, 239, 155 A. 231 [1931]." Fisher v. Hodge, 162 Conn. 363, 370, 294 A.2d 577 (1972), overruled on other grounds, Pedevillano v. Bryon, 231 Conn.......
-
Smith v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc.
...Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Kohn Bros. Tobacco Co., 141 Conn. 539, 542-43, 107 A.2d 406 (1954); Connelly v. Deconinck, 113 Conn. 237, 240, 155 A. 231 (1931); Levy v. Daniels' U-Drive Auto Renting Co., 108 Conn. 333, 336, 143 A. 163 (1928); Marshall v. Fenton, 107 Conn. 728, 73......
-
Sage-Allen Co., Inc. v. Wheeler
... ... Southbury, 95 Conn ... 242, 247, 111 A. 363; Blakeslee v. Water ... Commissioners, 106 Conn. 642, 663, 139 A. 106, 55 A.L.R ... 1319; Connelly v. Deconinck, 113 Conn. 237, 240, 155 ... A. 231. The words must have been used in the light of the ... fundamental purpose of the statutes to ... ...
-
The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
...agreement also permitted operation by the employer, valet parking attendants, and in an emergency situation. See id. 14. Id. at 269. 15. 113 Conn. 237, 155 A. 231 (1931). 16. Id. at 269. 17. Id. at 270. 18. Id. at 272. 19. Hammond & Groher, 1993 Connecticut Tort Law Review, 68 CONN.B.I. 61,......
-
Connecticut Rental Car Liability Survey and Commentary
...Regulate Stage and Other Carriage Drivers." 6. 107 Conn. 728, 142 A. 403 (1928). 7. Warshall, 107 Conn. at 731. 8. Connelly v. Deconinck, 113 Conn. 237, 155 A. 231 Fisher v. Hodge, 162 Conn. 363, 370, 294 A.2d 577 (1972). 9. 145 Conn. 34, 138 A.2d 705 (1958). 10. Graham, 145 Conn. at 40-1. ......