Hall v. Root

• Decision Date: 02 March 1929
• Citation: 145 A. 36,109 Conn. 33
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HALL v. ROOT ET AL.

145 A. 36

109 Conn. 33

HALL v. ROOT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 2, 1929

Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Edward M. Yeomans Judge.

Action by Gilson M. Hall, administrator, against Clayton R. Root and one Sodersten, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants. Verdict and judgment, on trial to the jury, were in plaintiff's favor against the first-named defendant and in favor of the last-named defendant, and defendant first named appeals. Error, and new trial ordered.

James W. Carpenter, of Hartford, and M. Eugene Culver, of Middletown, for appellant.

Thomas C. Flood, of Portland, for appellee.

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

BANKS J.

The plaintiff was a passenger in the automobile of the defendant Sodersten, which, as it was proceeding north upon Main street in the town of East Hampton at its intersection with High street, came into collision with the automobile of the defendant Root, which was proceeding west on High street. The plaintiff claimed that the collision was caused by the concurrent negligence of both defendants in approaching the intersection of the two streets at a reckless rate of speed and in failing to keep a proper lookout, and that the defendant Sodersten was negligent in increasing his speed after he entered the intersection at a time when the Root car had either entered it or was within 5 or 10 feet of it. The jury rendered a verdict against the defendant Root and in favor of the defendant Sodersten, and the plaintiff's appeal from the judgment in favor of the latter has been withdrawn.

The appeal of the defendant Root is based entirely upon claimed errors in the charge and refusals to charge. The charge is to be tested by the facts claimed to have been proved by the parties. It was agreed that High street, upon which the Root car was approaching, was 36 feet wide and Main street 18 feet wide; that at the southeast corner of the intersection there was a house which stood 26 feet from the southerly curb of High street and 29 feet from the easterly curb of Main street. Both the plaintiff and the defendant Root claimed to have proved that when the Sodersten car was near the northerly line of the house, which was 26 feet from the intersection, the Root car was approximately 50 feet from the intersection, and that the Sodersten car was traveling about 25 miles an hour. The plaintiff claimed to have proved that the Root car was traveling between 35 and 40 miles an hour, and Root claimed that his car was traveling about 25 miles an hour. They agreed that as the Sodersten car entered the intersection the Root car had either entered the intersection or was within 5 or 10 feet of it. Sodersten claimed to have proved that when his car entered the intersection the Root car was at least 150 feet away.

This collision occurred at a street intersection, and the important question in the case, as bearing upon the negligence of the respective drivers of the two vehicles, was as to which of them, under the circumstances, had the right of way. It was therefore essential that the jury be correctly instructed as to the respective rights of the two drivers as they were arriving at the intersection. The court charged the jury upon this point as follows: " If you find that the two cars arrived at this intersection at approximately the same time, it was the duty of the defendant Sodersten to give the defendant Root's car, which was approaching the intersection from Sodersten's right, the right of way. If, however, you find that when the defendant Sodersten entered the intersection defendant Root's car was some considerable distance away, then the defendant Sodersten had the right of way." The defendant Root contends that this portion of the charge was not an accurate statement of the...