Delfino v. Warners Motor Exp.

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtBefore INGLIS; DALY
Citation114 A.2d 205,142 Conn. 301
Decision Date03 May 1955
PartiesJoseph DELFINO v. WARNERS MOTOR EXPRESS. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 205

114 A.2d 205
142 Conn. 301
Joseph DELFINO
v.
WARNERS MOTOR EXPRESS.
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
May 3, 1955.

[142 Conn. 302]

Page 207

Charles R. Covert, Bridgeport, with whom were H. Mefford Runyon, Bridgeport, and, on the brief, P. Lawrence Epifanio, Stamford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Paul C. Jamieson, Stamford, with whom was Robert M. McAnerney, Stamford, for appellee (defendant).

Before [142 Conn. 301] INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.

[142 Conn. 302] DALY, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, acting through its agents and servants. The case was tried to a jury. Judgment was rendered upon a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff, in and by nine of his assignments of error, seeks to have twelve corrections made to the finding. The finding in a case tried to the jury is merely a narrative of the facts claimed to have been proved on either side, made for the purpose of fairly presenting any claimed errors in the charge or rulings of the court. It will not be corrected merely to secure a meticulous accuracy as to details. Orico v. Williams, 139 Conn. 714, 716, 97 A.2d 556; Brown v. Goodwin, 110 Conn. 217, 218, 147 A. 673. As the corrections sought are immaterial to the decision of any question of law raised on the appeal, they are not reasonably necessary to fairly present the claimed errors in the charge or rulings and will not be made. Fierberg v. Whitcomb, 119 Conn. 390, 392, 177 A. 135; Marks v. Dorkin, 104 Conn. [142 Conn. 303] 660, 662, 133 A. 915; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., § 85.

The plaintiff claimed to have proved these facts: On the night of February 19, 1946, at about 10:30 p. m., he was operating his automobile in a westerly direction on the Boston Post Road in the town of Greenwich. Very heavy, dense, clinging and freezing snow was falling at the time, and the road was covered with snow. The snow had been falling for several hours and traveling conditions were bad. The plaintiff was driving between twenty-five and thirty miles per hour, with his lights on and his windshield wiper working, and in the exercise of reasonable care. The defendant's agents and servants had negligently parked its truck in the westbound lane of the traveled portion of the highway, although there were shoulders on which it could have been parked. The defendant's truck was a large 34,000-pound box-car type tractor-trailer truck which was required to have taillights, reflectors and flares or other emergency lighting equipment. The defendant's agents and servants failed to set any flares or other emergency lighting equipment or, if any were set, they were not placed so as to be visible to vehicles approaching from the rear. The taillights on the truck were not lighted or, if they were, the defendant's agents had negligently permitted them to become obscured by the clinging snow. The defendant's truck was not equipped with reflectors or, if it was, the defendant's agents had negligently and carelessly permitted the falling snow to cover and obscure them. After the truck had been parked for more than ten minutes, the plaintiff came upon it suddenly, and although he tried to turn out and avoid striking it he was unable to do so. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff hit his head against the car door, broke his glasses, suffered body bruises and [142 Conn. 304] sustained a cerebral concussion. His car was damaged. He developed nervous disorders as a consequence of his injuries.

The defendant claimed to have proved these facts: Its truck had been proceeding in a westerly direction on the highway until the snowfall prevented it from proceeding further. The drivers of the truck parked it on the extreme right-hand side of the highway so that one-half of the truck was completely off the highway. It was equipped with five lights in the rear and two reflectors. The lights on it were fully lighted at the time of the accident. The truck was parked directly under a street light which illuminated it. The street lighting at the point of the collision was very bright. After they had parked the

Page 208

truck, the drivers set out flares in front and in the rear of it, the rear flare being between thirty and fifty feet from the back of the truck. The drivers then entered the cab of the truck to await the coming of a snow plow. After a period of time, they felt a jar and upon investigation saw the plaintiff and his automobile. Immediately after the accident, the plaintiff's car was parked on the left side of the truck....

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • State v. Graham
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 27, 1986
    ...State v. Mitchell, supra, 164, 362 A.2d 808; State v. Jones, 166 Conn. 620, 622, 353 A.2d 764 (1974); Delfino v. Warners Motor Express, 142 Conn. 301, 307, 114 A.2d 205 (1955); Page 497 Schmeltz v. Tracy, 119 Conn. 492, 498, 177 A. 520 (1935); Carney v. Hennessey, 77 Conn. 577, 586, 60 A. 1......
  • State v. Mastropetre
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 1, 1978
    ...review by this court. See, e. g., Cicero v. E. B. K., Inc., 166 Conn. 490, 497-98, 352 A.2d 309 (1974); Delfino v. Warners Motor Express, 142 Conn. 301, 308, 114 A.2d 205 (1955). In view, however, of the defendant's Page 279 claim that the court's ruling excluding this testimony violated hi......
  • State v. Vinal
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • February 18, 1986
    ...certain specified circumstances. See State v. Mitchell, 169 Conn. 161, 164-65, 362 A.2d 808 (1975); Delfino v. Warners Motor Express, 142 Conn. 301, 307, 114 A.2d 205 (1955); Schmeltz v. Tracy, 119 Conn. 492, 498, 177 A. 520 (1935). The proponent, however, remains free to introduce contradi......
  • Quednau v. Langrish
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • December 26, 1957
    ...as it does for the portions of the finding challenged by the plaintiff, no corrections are warranted. Delfino v. Warners Motor Express, 142 Conn. 301, 302, 114 A.2d 205; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. (2d Ed.) p. The plaintiff's claims of proof may be stated in summary as follows: She was walking ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • State v. Graham
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 27, 1986
    ...State v. Mitchell, supra, 164, 362 A.2d 808; State v. Jones, 166 Conn. 620, 622, 353 A.2d 764 (1974); Delfino v. Warners Motor Express, 142 Conn. 301, 307, 114 A.2d 205 (1955); Page 497 Schmeltz v. Tracy, 119 Conn. 492, 498, 177 A. 520 (1935); Carney v. Hennessey, 77 Conn. 577, 586, 60 A. 1......
  • State v. Mastropetre
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 1, 1978
    ...review by this court. See, e. g., Cicero v. E. B. K., Inc., 166 Conn. 490, 497-98, 352 A.2d 309 (1974); Delfino v. Warners Motor Express, 142 Conn. 301, 308, 114 A.2d 205 (1955). In view, however, of the defendant's Page 279 claim that the court's ruling excluding this testimony violated hi......
  • State v. Vinal
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • February 18, 1986
    ...certain specified circumstances. See State v. Mitchell, 169 Conn. 161, 164-65, 362 A.2d 808 (1975); Delfino v. Warners Motor Express, 142 Conn. 301, 307, 114 A.2d 205 (1955); Schmeltz v. Tracy, 119 Conn. 492, 498, 177 A. 520 (1935). The proponent, however, remains free to introduce contradi......
  • Quednau v. Langrish
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • December 26, 1957
    ...as it does for the portions of the finding challenged by the plaintiff, no corrections are warranted. Delfino v. Warners Motor Express, 142 Conn. 301, 302, 114 A.2d 205; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. (2d Ed.) p. The plaintiff's claims of proof may be stated in summary as follows: She was walking ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT