Dudas v. Ward Baking Co.

Decision Date29 May 1926
Citation104 Conn. 516,133 A. 591
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesDUDAS v. WARD BAKING CO.

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Zimny v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • August 5, 1986
    ...to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.' Dudas v. Ward Baking Co., 104 Conn. 516, 518, 133 A. 591 [1926]...." Ardoline v. Keegan, 140 Conn. 552, 555, 102 A.2d 352 [1954].' Camp v. Booth, 160 Conn. 10, 13, 273 A.2d 714 [1......
  • Murphy v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1943
    ... ... 417, 155 A. 360; ... Alpern v. Lasser, 247 N.Y.S. 806, 139 Misc. 68; ... Webb v. Los Angeles Ry. Corp., 134 Cal. 637, 26 P.2d ... 26; Dudas v. Ward Baking Co., 104 Conn. 516, 133 A ... 591; Priess v. Public Serv. Coordinated Transport ... Co., 11 N. J. Misc. 426, 166 A. 638; Agee ... ...
  • Tessmann v. Tiger Lee Const. Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1993
    ...favor of the court's proper exercise of its discretion. Timm v. Timm, 195 Conn. 202, 206, 487 A.2d 191 (1985); Dudas v. Ward Baking Co., 104 Conn. 516, 518, 133 A. 591 (1926). The plaintiffs claim that their testimony regarding the diminution in the value of their house attributable to the ......
  • Koops v. Gregg
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1943
    ...River Specialties Co., 90 Conn. 18, 20, 96 A. 169; Baril v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 90 Conn. 74, 76, 96 A. 164; Dudas v. Ward Baking Co., 104 Conn. 516, 518, 133 A. 591; Levy v. Bromberg, 108 Conn. 202, 204, 142 A. 836. It may be that in this case the jury could properly have disregard......
  • 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