Dudas v. Ward Baking Co.

• Citation: 104 Conn. 516,133 A. 591
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 29 May 1926
• Parties: DUDAS v. WARD BAKING CO.

133 A. 591

104 Conn. 516

DUDAS v. WARD BAKING CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 29, 1926

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Leonard J. Nickerson Judge.

Action by Juna Dudas against the Ward Baking Company to recover damages for personal injuries for the alleged negligence of the defendant. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff was set aside on defendant's motion, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

Maltbie J., dissenting.

Samuel Reich, of Brideport, and Philip Reich, of Brooklyn, N. Y for appellant.

Jackson Palmer, C. Milton Fessenden, Matthew H. Kenealy, and Daniel E. Ryan, all of Stamford, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and CURTIS, MALTBIE, HAINES, and HINMAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The case turned upon whether the collision occurred, as claimed by the plaintiff, as the driver of defendant's automobile, without warning, suddenly moved from the northerly portion to the southerly portion of the highway and cut across the traveled way directly in the course of plaintiff's automobile approaching from the west, or, as defendant claimed, as its car stood near to, and parallel with, the south curb of the highway, or partially upon the sidewalk.

The plaintiff's three witnesses were interested witnesses and discredited by statements made by them prior to the trial; as to two of the witnesses in writing, and as to the third orally, contradictory of their testimony upon the trial as to the location of defendant's car at the time of the collision and corroborative of defendant's claim of the location of its car at the time of the collision. It is significant that the plaintiff's complaint alleged that the collision occurred as defendant's car, which had been parked on the south or wrong side of the highway, suddenly moved to the north side of the highway directly in the path of plaintiff's car, thus corresponding in part with defendant's claim, but that an amendment of the complaint made just preceding the trial alleges that the collision occurred in the location and manner testified to upon the trial by plaintiff and her two witnesses. Four of the defendant's witnesses were disinterested and so far as the record indicates credible, and they directly contradict plaintiff and her witnesses upon the vitally material point as to the location and manner of the collision. Two policemen testified that the plaintiff's husband in her presence, at the police station just...