Cuneo v. Connecticut Co.
Decision Date | 01 November 1938 |
Citation | 2 A.2d 220,124 Conn. 647 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | CUNEO v. CONNECTICUT CO. et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Kenneth Wynne, Judge.
Action by Ida G. Cuneo against the Connecticut Company and others to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendants' negligence, brought to the superior court and tried to the jury. From a judgment on the verdict for plaintiff, against the named defendant, named defendant appeals.
No error.
Raymond E. Baldwin, of Bridgeport, for appellant.
John Keogh, Jr., and John Keogh, both of South Norwalk, for appellee.
Harry R. Sherwood and Hereward Wake, both of Westport, for appellee Reynolds, at the suggestion of the court, did not argue the cause.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS JJ.
The plaintiff, a passenger on a Connecticut Company bus, was injured while the bus was being operated by the other defendant, Clement E. Reynolds. The Connecticut Company, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, appeals from the denial of its motion to set aside the verdict and from the judgment, claiming that the court erred in refusing to charge as requested and in the charge as delivered. It claims that there was no evidence from which the jury could have found the defendant negligent and that even if negligence was found it was not, under the evidence, the proximate cause of the injury. The second question, that of proximate cause, is also raised with reference to the charge.
A comparison of the statement in the plaintiff's brief of the facts which the jury could reasonably have found with the evidence and with the defendant's statement shows that the situation could hardly be more clearly and concisely stated. It is as follows: While there was a conflict in the testimony as to whether the bus stalled when Reynolds first attempted to start it, the plaintiff's evidence justifies the last sentence quoted.
In view of the high degree of care exacted of common carriers of passengers for hire (Robinson v. Connecticut Co., 122 Conn. 300, 301, 189 A. 453), no extended discussion of the defendant's negligence is required. The jury could reasonably have found that the bus was stopped in a place dangerous both because of the fire and the traffic hazard and that it was left unattended with the engines running contrary to a rule of the public utilities commission, in evidence. The possibilities of exercising a higher degree of care than that shown by this course of conduct are too extensive to justify elaboration.
The mere statement of this situation also disposes of the defendant's claim that the acts of the driver constituted merely a condition out of which the plaintiff's injuries arose...
To continue reading
Request your trial