Durham v. Larom

• Decision Date: 22 December 1920
• Citation: 111 A. 832,95 Conn. 475
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: DURHAM v. LAROM et al.

111 A. 832

95 Conn. 475

DURHAM v. LAROM et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 22, 1920

Appeal from City Court of New Haven; Jacob Caplan, Judge.

Action by Myron R. Durhan against Charles E. Larom and others, to recover damages for injury to plaintiff's pleasure yacht through collision with the drifting pleasure yacht of the defendants, tried to the court. Facts found and judgment rendered for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

The substance and material part of the finding is that the plaintiff and defendants were the respective owners of two small pleasure yachts, each of which had a summer mooring or anchorage at Morris cove, on the eastern shore of New Haven Harbor during the season of 1916. On the afternoon of the 16th of September of that year the plaintiff's son was in charge of the craft involved here, Sachem, and, aided by a boy friend, had taken the boat down the sound on a pleasure sail. They returned at about 5:30 p.m., and picked up their mooring at Morris cove. The wind was blowing fresh from the southwest at this time, and as they reached Sachem's mooring and were preparing to make her secure they observed that Georgianna, the defendants' yacht, a somewhat larger boat than Sachem, was anchored directly to windward of their own mooring, 150 or 200 feet away, and was dragging her anchor and drifting straight with the wind upon Sachem. Durham thereupon took his small boat and went aboard Georgianna, where he " tampered with the anchoring device." He then returned to Sachem, and almost at once the drifting of Georgianna-which had momentarily stopped as a result of Durham's attention to the anchor chain-began again with increased speed, and she bumped stern on into Sachem, lying head to the wind and unable to avoid the collision, and did material damage as described in the complaint. Upon these facts the court found that the defendants were without negligence, and that the negligence of the plaintiff was responsible for the injury. The appeal complains, under various heads, of the alleged error of the trial court in reaching the conclusion that the plaintiff's negligence was responsible for the injury and attempts to challenge the correctness of the court's conclusion upon certain material matters of fact essentially involved in that conclusion; but no effort has been made by motion or otherwise to correct the finding in any respect Upon motion the evidence has been certified and made a part of the record as upon proceedings under General Statutes § 5832.

Frank Kenna, of New Haven, for appellant.

Hadlai A. Hull, Frank L. McGuire, and Charles Hadlai Hull, all of New London, and Arthur B. O'Keefe, of New Haven, for appellees.

CASE, J.

Although the record embraces a transcript of all the...