Greenhill v. Conn. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1918 |
| Citation | 103 A. 646,92 Conn. 560 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | GREENHILL v. CONNECTICUT CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield
Connecticut Company. Directed verdict for defendant, and from the judgment thereon plaintiff appeals. No error.
Philo C. Calhoun, of Bridgeport, for appellant. Joseph F. Berry, of New Haven, for appellee.
The testimony of the plaintiff, supported by that of the other witnesses offered in his behalf was to the following effect: The injuries of which he complains were sustained by him by reason of a collision between an automobile, which he was operating, and a trolley car operated by the defendant. The collision occurred in the night season at or near the junction of Connecticut and Stratford avenues in the town of Stratford near the Bridgeport line. The plaintiff was proceeding eastward along Connecticut avenue towards the junction on his way to his home in Stratford. The trolley car was proceeding in the opposite direction. Its route from Stratford extended along Stratford avenue to the point where Connecticut avenue joins it, and then followed Stratford avenue as it swings to the south and continued for some distance southerly of Connecticut avenue, upon which there were no tracks. The tracks on Stratford avenue, as they approach Connecticut avenue from the east, were laid in a curve having a 400-foot radius, and did not present a straightaway appearance to a traveler on the latter avenue. The natural and proper course for vehicles proceeding along Connecticut avenue in the direction of Stratford led them across the trolley tracks at the junction of the two avenues in order that they might gain the right side of Stratford avenue. The plaintiff as he approached the junction, was intending to take this course and was going at a moderate rate of speed estimated by him at from 10 to 12 miles an hour. When he was 400 feet away from the point of crossing he saw a lighted trolley car carrying an arc headlight approaching from the east and about 1,000 feet on the other side of the crossing. The car was proceeding at a speed of about 15 miles an hour. When he reached a point about 100 feet from the crossing the car was still visible and appeared to him, as he testified, to be about 500 feet away and standing still. He continued on, and when he had arrived at a point about 25 feet from the crossing he looked and saw the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Southern New England Tel. Co.
...Hoffman, 109 Conn. 158, 159, 145 A. 884, 885; Hayes v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 91 Conn. 301, 304, 99 A. 694; Greenhill v. Connecticut Co., 92 Conn. 560, 562, 103 A. 646. The plaintiff's claim is that, if the defendant had completed the call to the Riverside fire department, it could ha......
-
Sistare v. Connecticut Co.
...126 A. 688 101 Conn. 459 SISTARE v. CONNECTICUT CO. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.December 1, 1924 . Appeal. from Superior Court, New London ...Hartford & Springfield Street Railway. Co., 82 Conn. 471, 474, 74 A. 779; McKeon v. Connecticut Co., 83 Conn. 53, 54, 75 A. 139;. Greenhill v. Connecticut Co. 92 Conn. 560, 562, 103. A. 646. . . There. is error, and a new trial is ordered. . . All. concur. ......
-
de Maras v. Conn. Co.
...found the decedent free of contributory negligence. Jollimore v. Connecticut Co., 86 Conn. 314, 85 A. 373; Greenhill v. Connecticut Co., 92 Conn. 560, 103 A. 646; Deutsch v. Connecticut Co., 98 Conn. 482, 486, 119 A. 891; Sistare v. Connecticut Co., 101 Conn. 459, 464, 126 A. 688; Hizam v. ......
-
Bernardo v. Hoffman
...145 A. 884 109 Conn. 158 BERNARDO v. HOFFMAN ET AL. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.April 30, 1929 . Appeal. from Superior Court, Hartford County; ... the benefit of that construction most favorable to her. claims. Hayes v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 91. Conn. 301, 304, 99 A. 694; Greenhill v. Connecticut. Co., 92 Conn. 560, 562, 103 A. 646. . . From. the evidence of record the jury could reasonably have found. that the ......