Gennallo v. Mazzacane

• Decision Date: 17 December 1957
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Antonio GENNALLO et al. v. Raymond D. MAZZACANE, Administrator (ESTATE of Richard MAZZACANE). Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 534

137 A.2d 534

144 Conn. 686

Antonio GENNALLO et al. v. Raymond D. MAZZACANE, Administrator (ESTATE of Richard MAZZACANE).

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 17, 1957.

Bernard J. Virshup, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Edwin H. Hall, Thomas P. Hackett and Philip Baroff, New Haven, for appellants (plaintiffs).

John E. McNerney, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Francis J. Moran, New Haven, and Albert R. Moquet, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).

Before WYNNE, C. J., and BALDWIN, DALY, KING and MURPHY, JJ.

DALY, Associate Justice.

The named plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, brought this action against Raymond D. Mazzacane, administrator of the estate of Richard Mazzacane, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused on December 29, 1953, by the negligence of Richard Mazzacane, who died three days later and is hereinafter referred to as the decedent. The Connecticut Company, the plaintiff's employer, intervened as coplaintiff. In his answer, the defendant denied the plaintiff's allegation that the decedent was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The defendant alleged, also, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence which was a proximate cause of his injuries. The case was tried to the jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The court refused to set it aside and the plaintiff has appealed from the judgment.

In his first assignment of error the plaintiff claims that the court erred in denying his motion to set the verdict aside, contending that the verdict was not supported by the evidence and is against the law.

The evidence most favorable to the defendant would reasonably have permitted the jury to find the following facts: On December 29, 1953, at about 6:30 a. m., the plaintiff, a bus driver, was operating a Connecticut Company bus on the lefthand side of the northbound lane of Whitney Avenue in Hamden at a speed of thirty miles per hour. The road was slippery, there being ice on it and no sand. There were no cars parked along the east side of Whitney Avenue. The decedent was operating his car southerly on Whitney Avenue. It was slowly sliding sidewise toward the east. The bus was then about 175 feet away. The plaintiff continued to operate the bus northerly near the center line of the highway. He did not change its speed and made no attempt to turn it one way or the other. There was space for the bus to pass to the east of the decedent's car. The car and bus collided on the easterly half of the highway, the front left side of the car striking the front left side of the bus. After the collision the bus proceeded ahead about 125 feet. It came to a stop at the curb on the east side of Whitney Avenue. The decedent's car spun around two or three times on the west side of the highway and came to a stop, facing toward the east, 100 feet south of the bus. The bus was at all times on the right side of Whitney Avenue, facing north; that is, it was at all times east of the solid, double white center lines.

A verdict of a jury prevails unless it is unsupported by the evidence or is so palpably against the evidence as to indicate, prejudice, particality, corruption, confusion or lack of understanding of the issues by the jury. The conclusion of a jury on issues of fact, if it is one which honest men acting fairly and intelligently could arrive at reasonably, must stand, even though the opinion of the trial court and this court might be that a different...