Guilfoile v. Smith
| Citation | 111 A. 593,95 Conn. 442 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1920 |
| Parties | GUILFOILE v. SMITH. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Lucien F. Burpee Judge.
Action by Francis P. Guilfoile, administrator, against Fred Smith alias Fred Smelefsky, to recover damages to plaintiff's decedent, tried to the jury. From the granting of a motion for a nonsuit and the denying of a motion to set aside the nonsuit, the plaintiff appeals. Error, judgment set aside and new trial ordered.
Frank P. McEvoy, of Waterbury, for appellant.
Joseph P. Tuttle, of Hartford, for appellee.
The trial court granted the motion for a nonsuit because the plaintiff had failed to prove that the death of the decedent was due to the accident and because the proximate cause of the decedent's injuries was his own negligence.
Unless unworthy of credence, the trial court was bound to regard the evidence introduced by the plaintiff in the aspect most favorable to his cause of action.
" It was enough if he had thus made out a prima facie case though it might in the opinion of the court be a weak one." Girard v. Grosvenordale Co., 83 Conn. 20, 25, 74 A. 1126, 1128.
As we read the evidence, the jury might reasonably have found that the death of the decedent was due to an accident happening while the decedent was a passenger for hire in defendant's automobile, and at the time defendant ran his car into a stationary water tank upon a city street through his negligent operation of the car. And further the jury might reasonably have found that at the time of impact the car was damaged, and the decedent, who sat upon the lap of a passenger, with one leg protruding from the door of the car upon the side opposite the tank, had his leg caught between the car and the tank and was pulled from the car squeezed in body, and thrown to the ground, and as a consequence suffered injuries from which he shortly died.
A passenger riding in an automobile in the street of a populous community, with one leg protruding from one of the doors of the car in such way as to make it liable to come in contact with passing objects, is negligent in conduct.
The trial court presumably found that the decedent's leg did protrude so as to make it liable to come in contact with passing objects; and it must have assumed that the leg did protrude beyond the fender of the car. Of this there was no evidence.
If the passenger while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kinderavich v. Palmer
...of no consequence where the excess width played no part in producing the accident or consequent injuries. See, also, Guilfoile v. Smith, 95 Conn. 442, 444, 111 A. 593. Within the same category, also, fall those situations where the accident resulting in the injury would have happened whethe......
-
Kinderavich v. Palmer
...... buses was of no consequence where the excess width played no. part in producing the accident or consequent injuries. See,. also, Guilfoile v. Smith, 95 Conn. 442, 444, 111 A. 593. Within the same category, also, fall those situations. where the accident resulting in the injury would ......
-
Capitol Motor Lines v. Billingslea
......Burbank Cooperage Co.,. supra. . . Other. supporting authorities are Webb v. Batten, 117 W.Va. 644, 187 S.E. 325, 326; Guilfoile v. Smith, 95 Conn. 442, 111 A. 593; Huddy Cyc. of Automobile Law, Vol. 4-5, §. 139, p. 252; Hobbs-Western Co. v. Carmical, 192 Ark. 59, 91 S.W.2d ......
- Aisenberg v. C.F. Adams Co., Inc.