Curtis v. Bristol & Plainville Elec. Co.

• Citation: 102 Conn. 238,128 A. 517
• Parties: CURTIS v. BRISTOL & PLAINVILLE ELECTRIC CO.
• Decision Date: 03 April 1925
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

128 A. 517

102 Conn. 238

CURTIS v. BRISTOL & PLAINVILLE ELECTRIC CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 3, 1925

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Edwin C Dickenson, Judge.

Action by Joseph D. Curtis against the Bristol & Plainville Electric Company to recover damages for injury to plaintiff's automobile alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence. Judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

Whether motorman should have seen unlighted motor truck standing on track before he did, or should have seen before applying emergency brake, that truck was on track and not likely to get off in time to avoid collision, held fact questions for trial court.

George F. Hanrahan and A. Storrs Campbell, both of Hartford, for appellant.

Noble E. Pierce, of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and BEACH, CURTIS, KEELER, and KELLOGG JJ.

WHEELER, C.J.

The case was tried to the court and the following facts found The defendant's trolley road tracks for a considerable distance east and west of the place of the accident were laid on the southerly side of the Terryville road, a highway between the towns of Bristol and Terryville, and near the tracks on the south was a warehouse. The tracks were graded at this point for the purpose of permitting vehicular traffic to unload material at this warehouse, and for many years trucks had backed across the graded portion of the tracks while loading and unloading at the warehouse. A few minutes prior to the accident, plaintiff backed his truck loaded with lumber across these tracks to unload his truck at this warehouse, and the truck faced at a slight angle to the west. In a few minutes, due to the approach of a trolley car from the west, plaintiff drove the truck from the tracks, thus allowing the trolley car to pass and after it had passed plaintiff again backed his truck into its first position across the tracks and continued to unload. A trolley car approaching from the west stopped to receive passengers at Barlow street, 570 feet west of the place of accident, and then proceeded at about 12 miles an hour on a slight downgrade with nothing to obstruct the view of the motorman from a point a considerable distance west of Barlow street to the place of the accident. It was properly lighted and equipped with a foot brake and an emergency brake. It was dusk, a difficult time for operators of lighted vehicles to see ahead. The truck had no tail lights and no side lights, and the only lights on the front were the headlights, which were very dim; the truck stood at a slight angle, the front slanting away from the trolley, and the truck's lights were of insufficient strength to give warning of its presence to the defendant's motorman. The operator of the truck failed to display proper lights.

A few minutes after resuming unloading the lumber, the operator of the truck noticed the trolley car approaching from the west and about 200 to 300 yards distant. He called to his helper, who was in the warehouse, to climb up on the truck and hold a lantern while he cranked the motor and drove the auto clear of the tracks. Whether the helper did display this lantern on this truck is not specifically found, but we have assumed that this is found as an inference; but the manner in which he displayed it is not found.

The motorman of the trolley car first saw the truck when the trolley car was 85 feet west of the place of the accident. He immediately applied his foot brake, but did not apply his emergency brake until he was 15 feet from the truck, at which time he saw that he could not stop the trolley car with the foot brake in time to avoid the collision. The car struck the truck and badly damaged it. The...