Friedler v. Hekeler

• Decision Date: 21 February 1921
• Citation: 96 Conn. 29,112 A. 651
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: FRIEDLER v. HEKELER.

112 A. 651

96 Conn. 29

FRIEDLER v. HEKELER.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 21, 1921

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; George E. Hinman Judge.

Action by Dorothy Friedler against Karl M. Hekeler. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. No error.

Action by a minor suing by her next friend to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence, brought to the superior court in New Haven county, and tried to the jury before Hinman, J Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. No error.

The plaintiff offered evidence to prove that the defendant drove his automobile through Hurlburt street in New Haven at a rate of between 20 and 25 miles an hour, while looking at the numbers on the houses in search of No. 8, where he intended to deliver merchandise; that two small children ran across in front of his automobile, and that the defendant turned his head to admonish them; and that while dong so and continuing to drive his car at a high rate of speed along the street he struck and injured the plaintiff, a child of about 5 1/2 years of age. The negligence alleged was in driving the car at a greater speed than was reasonable under all the circumstances, and in failing to keep a proper lookout. The defendant appeals from the denial of the motions to set aside the verdict as excessive and as against the evidence, and for errors in the admission of evidence.

Prentice W. Chase, of New Haven, for appellant.

Benjamin Slade and Harry L. Edlin, both of New Haven, for appellee.

BEACH J.

[] The motion to set aside the verdict as against the evidence was properly denied. Defendant's claim is that the plaintiff darted suddenly and unexpectedly in front of the car, but on this issue the evidence is conflicting, and the jury might reasonably have found that the plaintiff and two other children were playing together within the defendant's vision as he drove down the street, and that after two of them had run across in front of his car he ought to have looked to see whether the other one would follow. The motion to set aside the verdict as excessive was also properly denied. The plaintiff's injuries were severe, and there was evidence of permanent facial disfigurement. The jury saw the plaintiff, and, being properly instructed, their estimate of what amount of money would fairly compensate a girl of that age for that permanent disfigurement must stand. It does not appear from the record that the verdict was so excessive as to indicate that the jury were controlled by passion, prejudice, partiality, or corruption.

The evidence of the witness Halprin as to the distance within which a Ford car could be stopped if moving at 10, 8, or 5 miles an hour was properly admitted. Defendant's car was a Ford delivery wagon, and he claimed that he was keeping a proper lookout and driving it under full control at a rate not exceeding 5 miles an hour.

The only other assignment of error is that the court erred " in permitting the plaintiff's attorney to exhibit the plaintiff before the jury and question her and direct her, she not being under oath and incapable of taking oath." The finding shows that the incident occurred while a physician was on the witness stand, testifying as to the extent and character of the plaintiff's injuries. He had already testified, in substance, that the scar above her left eye tended to pull the eyelid upward so that the lid did not cover the eye completely, especially during sleep; but added that the child could close her eye with forcible constriction fairly well. Thereupon the plaintiff's counsel called the little girl to him and asked her to show the jury to what extent she could close her eye, and the following objection was...