Gledhill v. Connecticut Co.

• Citation: 121 Conn. 102,183 A. 379
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 05 February 1936
• Parties: GLEDHILL v. CONNECTICUT CO. et al.

183 A. 379

121 Conn. 102

GLEDHILL v. CONNECTICUT CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 5, 1936

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Ernest A. Inglis Judge.

Action by Nellie Gledhill, administratrix of the estate of Ernest Gledhill, deceased, against the Connecticut Company and James Graham, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's decedent alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendants and the heedless and reckless disregard of the rights of plaintiff's decedent by defendant Graham brought to the superior court and tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for the defendant company, and for plaintiff against defendant Graham, and appeal by Graham.

No error.

Argued before HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS, JJ.

Joseph G. Shapiro, of Bridgeport, (Harry Allison Goldstein and Charles S. Brody, both of Bridgeport, on the brief), for appellant.

Samuel E. Friedman, of Bridgeport, for appellee.

AVERY Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action as administratrix of Ernest Gledhill, her husband, who was killed in an automobile accident in the town of Stratford on August 16, 1934. In her complaint, she alleged that his death was caused by the negligence of both defendants and by the heedless and reckless disregard of his rights by the defendant Graham. The case was tried to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant the Connecticut Company by direction of the court. This ruling was not appealed from and the question of its correctness is not involved. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant James Graham, and the latter has appealed.

The plaintiff claimed to have proved that James Graham, a resident of New York, while on a summer vacation, was visiting Ernest Gledhill, his brother-in-law, in Bridgeport. At about 5 o'clock in the morning of August 16th, they left for a fishing trip in an automobile owned by Gledhill and in which he was seated upon the front seat. Graham was driving at the request of Gledhill. They drove out into the town of Stratford along Ferry boulevard, which, at the place of the accident, consisted of two lanes of concrete pavement with a double line of trolley tracks between. In rounding a curve, the car was driven off the pavement onto the part occupied by the trolley tracks. Graham tried to get back onto the pavement, lost control of the car, and drove it at high speed into a pole on the side of the road, causing injuries to Gledhill from which the latter died.

When the plaintiff rested her case, her counsel admitted in open court that there was no intentional misconduct on the part of the defendant Graham, nor was he guilty of any reckless or wanton disregard of the rights of others, and stated that she made no claim that the evidence established intentional or wanton misconduct, or heedless or reckless disregard of the rights of others. The defendant requested the court to charge the jury that Gledhill, at the time of the accident, was a guest in the automobile, and that the plaintiff could not recover without proof that the accident was caused by his intentional act or by his heedless or reckless disregard of the rights of Gledhill, and that if negligence only was shown no recovery could be had. The court refused to charge as requested, but instructed the jury that if they found that the defendant had failed to use ordinary care in the speed or control of the automobile, as alleged in the complaint, whereby the plaintiff's decedent was killed, she could recover. The assignments of error pursued on this appeal relate to the action of the court in so charging and in failing to charge as requested, the claim of the defendant being that upon the facts claimed to have been proved Gledhill, at the time of the accident, was a guest in the automobile.

The statute (General...