Duggan v. Byrolly Transp. Co.

Decision Date14 May 1936
Citation121 Conn. 372,185 A. 85
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesDUGGAN et al. v. BYROLLY TRANSP. CO.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Edwin C. Dickenson Judge.

Action by William F. Duggan against the Byrolly Transportation Company, to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence, brought to and tried by the superior court, wherein another party plaintiff intervened under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen.St.1930, s 5223 et seq., as amended) as employer. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

No error.

Evidence authorized trial court's conclusion that truck driver's failure to apply brakes to avoid collision with on-coming truck making left turn into driveway and in bearing to right instead of to left, so that he collided with rear of oncoming truck when rear had reached point 12 feet into driveway, constituted negligence which was sole cause of collision.

John T. Monzani, of Waterbury, and Martin E. Gormley, mf New Haven, for appellant.

William A. Bree, Francis J. Moran, and Daniel L. O'Neill all of New Haven, for appellees.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN, JJ.

BROWN Judge.

The court's finding of certain facts, and its conclusions that the plaintiff Duggan was free from contributory negligence, that the defendant was negligent, and that this negligence caused the damage to the plaintiffs, are the errors assigned upon this appeal. No change can be made in the finding which could materially affect the issues decisive thereof.

The finding discloses these material facts: About 3 o'clock on the afternoon of November 27, 1934, a clear dry day, Duggan was driving his employer's small bakery delivery truck southerly in Wallingford on the state highway from Meriden to New Haven, approaching an eating place known as Colony Lodge, situated on the easterly side of the road. A private driveway leads into the lodge on its north side and another on its south, connecting at the rear of it. The traveled portion of the highway is macadem 19 feet wide, with a shoulder 3 or 4 feet wide on its east side opposite this northerly driveway. About 200 feet north of this driveway is a slight curve, and from that point southerly the road is straight and level for more than a quarter of a mile. As Duggan, who was fully acquainted with the locus, approached the northerly driveway, he was driving on his right-hand side of the road, but toward the center, and there was no other vehicle proceeding southerly except a coal truck which was following some 10 or 12 feet behind the plaintiff's truck.

At a point about 25 or 30 feet north of the northerly driveway, Duggan signaled for a left turn by putting out his left hand and pointing left, indicating that he was to turn into it. Immediately thereafter the coal truck pulled to the right, and as the plaintiffs' truck slowed down and proceeded to make the turn into the driveway, passed it on the right and proceeded on southerly. When Duggan started to make the turn, he saw the defendant's truck coming in the opposite direction on its own right side of the highway at about 100 to 125 feet away, and as he was making the turn into the driveway, the plaintiffs' truck was going at a speed of about 10 or 12 miles an hour. At that time the plaintiffs' truck was opposite the north entrance and had traveled 25 or 30 feet from where Duggan first saw the defendant's truck, and upoon then looking toward the defendant's truck again, he discovered that it was but 50 or 75 feet away. As the plaintiffs' truck continued on, it was struck by the defendant's truck when the rear end of the former had reached a point 12 feet into the northerly driveway.

The defendant's truck was 18 feet long, weighing 7 tons, and was loaded with 5 1/2 to 6 tons of steel, which had been treated with oil that had been dripping through the body onto the tires from the time it had left Bridgeport. It was equipped with two-wheel...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Cooley v. Baker
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 8, 1950
    ...611, 169 So. 224; Huber v. Scott, 122 Cal.App. 334, 10 P.2d 150; Inouye v. Gilboy Co., 115 Cal. App. 25, 300 P. 835; Duggan v. Byrolly Transp. Co., 121 Conn. 372, 185 A. 85; Enfield v. Butler, 221 Iowa 615, 264 N.W. 546; Smith v. Clark, 187 Va. 181, 46 S.E. 2d 21; Virginia Electric & Power ......
  • Rosenblatt v. Berman
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • November 29, 1955
    ...we can do for a better understanding of the court's decision. Smith v. State, 139 Conn. 249, 251, 93 A.2d 296; Duggan v. Byrolly Transportation Co., 121 Conn. 372, 375, 185 A. 85. The court, with a commendable desire to avoid the necessity for a new trial, has attempted to rationalize the j......
  • Dettenborn v. Hartford-National Bank & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1936
  • Smith v. Union & New Haven Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1936
  • 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