Gianotta v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 April 1923 |
| Citation | 120 A. 560,98 Conn. 743 |
| Parties | GIANOTTA v. NEW YORK, N.H. & H. R. CO. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Thomas J Malloy, Judge.
Action by Pasquale Gianotta against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Error and new trial ordered.
Plaintiff testified that he stopped his automobile 15 feet from defendant's track and looked in either direction, but neither saw nor heard the trolley car until he was on the track, when he saw the car 150 feet distant, and traveling at 35 miles an hour. He also offered evidence that from the point where he looked an approaching car could have been seen from 200 to 400 feet, while defendant's evidence based on the physical facts, showed that it could have been seen at a distance of 800 feet. Held, that failure to look for the approaching car within the distance of 15 feet from the track constituted contributory negligence.
James W. Carpenter and H. M. French, both of New Haven, for appellant.
William F. Mangan and Bernard F. Gaffney, both of New Britain, for appellee.
The appeal is based upon the denial of the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. The defendant's trolley car ran into plaintiff's automobile when it was crossing a grade crossing in Berlin. The sole question upon the appeal is as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff offered evidence to prove that he stopped his automobile in the highway at a point about 15 feet south of defendant's main track, and looked in either direction up and down defendant's track, and neither saw nor heard defendant's car approaching from the east, and when his automobile was upon the track he saw for the first time the approaching car, 150 feet distant, and traveling upwards of 35 miles an hour, and too late to avoid the collision. He further offered the evidence of himself and two witnesses that, at the point where he stopped and looked, a car approaching from the east could have been seen for not to exceed 200 to 400 feet.
The defendant offered evidence of the physical facts surrounding the situation in controversy, from which it must be found that the plaintiff, at the point where he claims to have stopped, could have seen the approaching car for a distance of 800 feet, and that his view as he neared the track increased to 900...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hammond, 14354
...see a trolley bearing down on him. Budaj v. Connecticut Co., supra, 108 Conn. at 475-76, 143 A. 527. In Gianotta v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 98 Conn. 743, 744, 120 A. 560 (1923), we held that a tort claimant could not reasonably have failed to see an approaching train in light of his own ......
-
Wells v. Radville
... ... be set aside." Richard v. New York, N.H. & H. R ... Co., 104 Conn. 229, 232, 132 A. 451, 452; Steinert ... v. Whitcomb, 84 Conn. 2, 263, 79 A. 675; [112 Conn ... 468] Gianotta v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 98 ... Conn. 743, 744, 120 A. 560; Budaj v. Connecticut ... Co., ... ...
-
Aldrich v. Duggan
... ... imported by the verdict, could reasonably have been reached ... Richard v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 104 Conn ... 229, 232, 132 A. 451; Gianotta v. New York, N.H. & H. R ... ...
-
Lahunta v. City Of Waterbury.
...is either unintentionally or intentionally untrue because in conflict with the indisputable physical facts. Gianotta v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 98 Conn. 743, 744, 120 A. 560.’ Richard v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 104 Conn. 229, 232, 132 A. 451, 452. In deciding whether there was err......