Giddings v. Honan

• Citation: 114 Conn. 473,159 A. 271
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 08 March 1932
• Parties: GIDDINGS v. HONAN

159 A. 271

114 Conn. 473

GIDDINGS v. HONAN

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 8, 1932

Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County; Earnest C. Simpson Judge.

Action by Starr Giddings, administrator of the estate of William Giddings, against Edward A. Honan, to recover damages for personal injuries resulting in the death of the plaintiff's decedent, brought to the superior court and tried to the jury; verdict and judgment for the defendant and appeal by the plaintiff.

No error.

Charge to effect jury could consider fact motorist had taken liquor in determining whether he drove heedlessly, injuring guest held sufficient under circumstances.

John H. Cassidy and W. T. Keavney, Jr., both of Waterbury, for appellant.

Samuel A. Herman and Lester W. Schaefer, both of Winsted, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

HINMAN, J.

On the evening of August 2, 1980, Thomas Honan, son of the defendant, drove the defendant's automobile, having with him as a guest William Giddings, to Bantam Lake, where they visited a dance hall and each had two drinks of liquor from a bottle which was passed around by friends of Honan. At about 11 o'clock they started for Waterbury where Honan had an engagement. Two men who soon afterward drove in the same direction came upon the defendant's car standing in the middle of the road on Morris Hill, its windshield broken, the fenders bent, and the body scratched as if the car had rolled over, and the left front tire was flat. Honan was lying partly over the hood of the car and Giddings by the side of the road, both in an unconscious condition. They were taken to the Waterbury Hospital where Giddings died without regaining consciousness, and Honan remained unconscious until the following morning. Other evidence appearing in the finding is referred to hereafter.

The assignments of error are based principally upon the failure of the trial court to charge in three specified particulars and to comment upon certain phases of the evidence. The plaintiff filed no requests, and, if the charge as a whole is correct in law and sufficient to guide the jury in deciding the issues, error cannot be predicated upon the omissions complained of. Miller v. Pierpont, 87 Conn. 406 410, 87 A. 785; Morosini v. Davis, 110 Conn. 358, 364, 148 A. 371. Clearly the plaintiff was not entitled to the claimed instruction that the operator of the car knew or ought to have known what facts occurred just prior to the accident and what caused the accident, and the fact that when called as a witness he testified that he did not know what happened or what caused the accident raised a presumption that he was heedless and reckless in the operation of the automobile. Also, there was no error in not charging that the most reasonable inference from the evidence of the driver concerning his recollection as to the events preceding and attending the accident and his admission as to having previously taken two drinks was that he was under the influence of liquor. The court charged that the fact that he had taken the drinks did not of itself justify the jury in finding that he was driving heedlessly and without regard to the rights of the decedent, but was to be taken into consideration, in determining that issue, along with the other circumstances and any reasonable inferences as to the effect that the liquor may have had upon him. This with the general reference made to the testimony and the claims of counsel. leaving the weight thereof and the decision of the ultimate issue as...