Hanken v. Buckley Bros., Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1970 |
| Citation | 270 A.2d 556,159 Conn. 438 |
| Parties | Charles HANKEN, Administrator (ESTATE of David W. GALLANT) v. BUCKLEY BROTHERS, INC., et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Sigmund L. Miller, Bridgeport, for appellant (plaintiff).
Richard P. Gilardi, with whom was Richard F. Oburchay, Stratford, for appellees (defendants).
Before ALCORN, C.J., and HOUSE, COTTER, THIM and SHAPIRO, JJ.
This action arose out of a fatal accident in the early morning of June 30, 1963, after the plaintiff's decedent, David W. Gallant, accompanied by a female companion, drove an automobile from Seaview Avenue, a public highway in Bridgeport, Connecticut, onto the oil terminal premises of the defendant Buckley Brothers, Inc. He then parked, facing a concrete wall, and put out his car lights. Thereafter, he started the vehicle and drove off after being told by a Buckley employee, Fred Bromeyer, also a defendant, that he was on private property and must leave. He was killed when the vehicle left the pavement of the terminal and plunged into the surrounding water. The plaintiff claims that Gallant's death resulted from the negligence of the defendants. The defendants denied negligence and pleaded special defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. From a verdict in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff has appealed. The assignments of error concern the trial court's charge to the jury and the failure to charge as requested.
The plaintiff's first claim of error is that the court gave unequal treatment in its charge to the plaintiff's claim of negligence and the defendants' claim of contributory negligence. This claim is made on the ground that the court instructed the jury that the defendants need prove only one of their specific allegations of contributory negligence, but the court did not similarly instruct the jury with respect to the plaintiff's allegations of negligence, thereby unduly favoring the defendants. The defendants' special defense contains various specific allegations of contributory negligence which charge the plaintiff's decedent with several distinct acts, such as excessive speed and driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Any one of the acts alleged might constitute the ground upon which the plaintiff's decedent may be claimed to have been contributorily negligent. See Hoffman v. Mohican Co., 136 Conn. 392, 395-396, 71 A.2d 921. Where as here, several distinct acts of contributory negligence are alleged, the court properly instructed the jury that proof of any one of them would be sufficient to prevent recovery. See Sacks v. Connecticut Co., 109 Conn. 221, 237, 146 A. 494; Pratt, Read & Co. v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 102 Conn. 735, 740, 130 A. 102; Ashborn v. Waterbury, 70 Conn. 551, 555, 40 A. 458. The plaintiff's complaint contains allegations of negligence which in essence charge that a dangerous condition existed on the premises of the oil terminal concerning which the defendants had a duty to warn the plaintiff's decedent. These allegations, considered together, serve to allege the several integral parts which constitute the basic negligence complained of, and each of them is simply a factor relevant for consideration in determining whether the defendants were negligent. See Hoffman v. Mohican Co., supra, 136 Conn. 395, 71 A.2d 921. Since the plaintiff's allegations of negligence in the aggregate constitute the negligence complained of, the court's refusal to charge that proof of any one of them would sustain the plaintiff's complaint was proper. Ibid. Thus, it was not error for the court to instruct the jury that the defendants need prove only one of their allegations of contributory negligence, and it was not error for the court to instruct the jury, as it did, with respect to the plaintiff's allegations of negligence.
The plaintiff also maintains that his claim of negligence and the defendants' claim of contributory negligence received unequal treatment because, while the court instructed the jury on each of the specific allegations of contributory negligence, it merely referred the jury to certain paragraphs in the substituted complaint as regards the allegations of negligence and told them that they would have the substituted complaint with them in the jury room. The court's charge to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Novella v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
...A.2d 664, 667. Viewing the charge as a whole, as we must do; Enlund v. Buske, 160 Conn. 327, 331, 278 A.2d 815, Hanken v. Buckley Bros., Inc., 159 Conn. 438, 441, 270 A.2d 556; it is apparent that the charge adequately instructed the jury on the principles of estoppel or implied waiver and ......
-
State v. Beaulieu
...State v. Guthridge, 164 Conn. 145, 154, 318 A.2d 87, 93; State v. Raffone, 161 Conn. 117, 127, 285 A.2d 323; Hanken v. Buckley Bros. Inc., 159 Conn.438, 441, 442, 270 A.2d 556; State v. Tropiano, 158 Conn. 412, 433, 262 A.2d 147, cert. denied, 398 U.S. 949, 90 S.Ct. 1866, 26 L.Ed.2d 288; an......
-
State v. Edwards
...instructions are to be read and considered as a whole. DePaola v. Seamour, 163 Conn. 246, 253, 303 A.2d 737; Hanken v. Buckley Bros., Inc., 159 Conn. 438, 442, 270 A.2d 556; State v. Johnson, 139 Conn. 89, 93, 90 A.2d 905. The test to be applied to the charge is whether it fairly presents t......
-
Colucci v. Pinette
...contributory negligence as a special defense, each of which is a separate and distinct defense. See Hanken v. Buckley Bros., Inc., 159 Conn. 438, 442-43, 270 A.2d 556 (1970); Meglio v. Comeau, supra, 137 Conn. 553, 79 A.2d 187. The jury's general verdict, which imports that the issues of fa......