Di Maio v. Panico
| Decision Date | 05 July 1932 |
| Citation | 115 Conn. 295,161 A. 238 |
| Parties | DI MAIO v. PANICO et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John Rufus Booth Judge.
Action by Vincenzo Di Maio against Mari Panico and others to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff's person and automobile alleged to have been caused by defendants' negligence. From a verdict and judgment for defendants after a trial before a jury, plaintiff appeals.
No error.
George E. Beers and Edward S. Snyder, both of New Haven, for appellant.
H. M French, of New Haven (D. L. O'Neill, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellees.
The plaintiff suffered injuries by reason of a collision between an automobile driven by him and one driven by one of the defendants at a street intersection. The defendants' car approached the intersection on the right of the plaintiff. Each party claimed the right of way, the defendants under the statute in effect at the time of the accident (General Statutes, § 1639), and the plaintiff upon the ground that the vehicles were not approaching the Intersection at approximately the same time but that he arrived at and entered it well a head of the defendants. The plaintiff assigns as error the failure of the trial court to give two requests to charge submitted to it. One of these did not comply with our rules, Practice Book 1922, p. 275 insert; and the issue as to which party had the right of way to which it seems to have been directed, was very fully presented to the jury in the charge as given. The other request sought to have the trial court charge the jury upon the issue of the defendants liability under the last clear chance doctrine. Upon the claims of proof of both parties both cars continued in motion until the collision occurred and there was no reasonable basis for a conclusion by the jury that the car of the plaintiff had arrived in a position of peril from the defendants' automobile a sufficient length of time before the collision to bring into operation the elements' in the latter's conduct which are necessary to the application of the doctrine. There was no occasion therefore to charge the jury as to the doctrine. Rooney v. Levinson, 95 Conn. 466, 469, 111 A. 794; Correntl v. Catino, 115 Conn. 213, 160, A. 892. The various excerpts from the charge which are assigned as error, when read in their proper context, afford the plaintiff no just ground of complaint.
The plaintiff also assigns as error the exclusion of a question asked of a witness apparently called for the first time in rebuttal. He was an eyewitness of the accident, and the plaintiff, after calling attention to a statement in the testimony of one of the defendants as to the position of the cars after the accident, asked him to state what their position was. The question was excluded as not proper rebuttal but as being a part of the direct case of the plaintiff. The rule as to rebuttal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boone v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc.
...however, relate to whether the trial court erred by declining to admit Corsico's testimony as rebuttal . See, e.g., Di Maio v. Panico , 115 Conn. 295, 298, 161 A. 238 (1932) (‘‘The rule upon this subject is a familiar one. When, by the pleadings, the burden of proving any matter in issue is......
-
Rosenfield v. Cymbala
...he must " 'in the first instance, introduce all the evidence upon which he relies to establish his claim.' " DiMaio v. Panico, 115 Conn. 295, 298, 161 A. 238 (1932), quoting Hathaway v. Hemingway, 20 Conn. 191, 195 (1850). A plaintiff cannot present other evidence or more compelling evidenc......
-
Vazzano v. Slater
...is allowed is within the sound discretion of the court. State v. Lisella, 187 Conn. 335, 337, 445 A.2d 922 (1982); DiMaio v. Panico, 115 Conn. 295, 298, 161 A. 238 (1932); Liskiewicz v. LeBlanc, 5 Conn.App. 136, 139-40, 497 A.2d 86 (1985). Such testimony is ordinarily limited to refuting ev......
-
Baystate Moving Systems, Inc. v. Bowman
...rebuttal evidence refutes evidence presented as part of the defendant's case-in-chief. See State v. Wood, supra; DiMaio v. Panico, 115 Conn. 295, 298-99, 161 A. 238 (1932); Hathaway v. Hemingway, 20 Conn. 191, 195 We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in this case by limi......