Hallock v. Motors, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1941 |
| Docket Number | File 13587 |
| Citation | 9 Conn.Supp. 261 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | JAMES HALLOCK v. MOTORS, INC. |
A collision of motor vehicles resulted from negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout and in failing to reduce speed and to take advantage of an opportunity to avoid the collision.
The plaintiff's recovery for damage to his vehicle was limited to that portion of the damage for which he was not reimbursed by his insurer.
Thomas F. McGrath, of Waterbury, for the Plaintiff.
Bronson, Lewis, Bronson & Upson, of Waterbury, for the Defendant.
Memorandum of decision in action arising out of collision of motor vehicles.
The plaintiff was operating a motor truck out of a private driveway on to a public highway. The traveled portion of the highway consists of two cement panels, each of which is approximately ten feet in width. On the northerly side of the cement lane there is a tarred shoulder six feet in width. On the southerly side the tarred shoulder is nine feet wide. As the plaintiff approached the northerly lane of the public highway he brought the truck to a stop; looked to his right and left and then proceeded to his left at a speed of approximately five miles an hour. As he crossed the northerly cement lane of the highway he could see about 150 to 200 feet to his left-that is, easterly. A vehicle approaching from the plaintiff's left-that is, approaching in a westerly direction, from the east-would be so placed that its operator could, in the exercise of reasonable care, have seen the plaintiff's vehicle when it was about on the center line of the two cement lanes at a distance of 150 to 200 feet.
The operator of the defendant's vehicle did not see the plaintiff's vehicle until the operator of the defendant's vehicle was within about 65 feet of the plaintiff's vehicle.
As the defendant's operator drove westerly and about 400 or 500 feet easterly of a quarry which is in close proximity to and just easterly of the scene of the collision, he was driving at a speed of at least 65 miles an hour, followed at a distance of about ten feet by another vehicle which was proceeding at approximately the same speed.
This speed continued for a distance of 300 or 400 feet westerly toward the scene of the collision. At that point the road makes a rather sharp turn to the west, which would be to the right of the defendant's operator.
The plaintiff, as he drove on to the public highway, had no right of way.
The defendant's operator had the right of way over the plaintiff.
From his testimony it is apparent that the defendant's operator had driven over the highway in question on many occasions.
It seems reasonable to infer that, in his previous use of this highway and from his travel over it in both directions, the defendant's operator had reasonable opportunity to observe the relatively sharp curve in the road and to be reasonably aware of the reasonable care required in the operation of an automobile in the vicinity of the quarry and the curve.
When the operator of the defendant's vehicle was, at least 150 feet easterly of the plaintiff's vehicle there was then ample opportunity for him to have then seasonably and reasonably seen the position of the plaintiff's truck and to have decreased the speed of the car which he was then operating.
There was also ample opportunity for him, in view of the width of the northerly shoulder of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial