Efland v. Guyott Const. Co.
Decision Date | 31 July 1951 |
Citation | 82 A.2d 925,138 Conn. 183 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | EFLAND v. GUYOTT CONST. CO., Inc., et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Martin E. Gormley, New Haven, for the appellants defendants.
Charles Henchel, New Haven, for the appellee plaintiff.
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, INGLIS, BALDWIN and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendants for injuries which he suffered when the bus he was operating collided with a truck which was owned by the named defendant and driven by the defendant Carroll. The jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff's favor. The court denied the motion of the defendants to set the verdict aside and they appealed. The issue is whether the court erred in denying the motion.
The trial court filed the following memorandum of decision:
A majority of the court hold that the memorandum filed by the trial court in denying the motion to set aside the verdict adequately disposes of the only issue on appeal. The situation is similar to that in Brangi v. Marshall, 117 Conn. 675, 168 A. 21; and see Camarotta v. Kling, 108 Conn. 602, 604, 143 A. 881. In the instant case, as in the Brangi case, the jury could have found that when the plaintiff reached the edge of the intersection he reduced his speed before proceeding on through it. If he had the right to proceed, this he might properly do, for 'he was entitled to assume that the driver of the truck would grant it to him and have the truck under control so that the plaintiff could proceed through the intersection, in the exercise of reasonable care, without interference.' Brangi v. Marshall, supra, 117 Conn. 677, 168 A. 21. It is true, as pointed out in McNaught v. Smith, 127 Conn. 450, 453, 17 A.2d 771, that arriving at the intersection first is not the test. It is, however, a factor that may be considered by the trier in deciding whether, under the rule, the cars are arriving at the intersection at approximately the same time. In an appeal of this type it is assumed that the charge was correct. Schroeder v. City of Hartford, 104 Conn. 334, 336, 132 A. 901. The decision of the trial court is entitled to great weight, especially when it agrees with that of the jury. Scarcello v. Town of Greenwich, 127 Conn. 464, 468, 17 A.2d 523. It was a question of fact for the jury to decide, under proper instructions, whether the defendant Carroll had the right of way or the plaintiff had the right to proceed first through the intersection.
There is no error.
General Statutes, § 2489(a) ( ) requires that each operator of a vehicle 'approaching any intersecting public street or highway shall grant the right of way at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harris v. Clinton
...to set aside a verdict it must be assumed, unless questioned, that the charge was correct in law and adequate. Efland v. Guyott Construction Co., 138 Conn. 183, 186, 82 A.2d 925. A verdict of a jury prevails unless unsupported by the evidence; Dupuis v. Dupuis, 100 Conn. 96, 99, 122 A. 904;......
-
Salvatore v. Hayden
...the assumption that the charge was otherwise correct in law and sufficient for the guidance of the jury. Efland v. Guyott Construction Co., 138 Conn. 183, 186, 82 A.2d 925; Leverone v. City of New London, 118 Conn. 463, 467, 173 A. 108. The testimony on both mental capacity and undue influe......
- Bruneau v. W. & W. Transp. Co.