Hansen v. Costello

• Decision Date: 05 April 1939
• Citation: 125 Conn. 386,5 A.2d 880
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HANSEN v. COSTELLO (two cases).

5 A.2d 880

125 Conn. 386

HANSEN v. COSTELLO (two cases).

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 5, 1939

Appeal from City Court of Hartford, Hartford County; Nicholas F Rago, Judge.

Actions by Robert C. Hansen and by Ermina Hansen, his wife, against Patrick Costello to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant. From judgments for plaintiffs in both cases, defendant appeals.

No error.

MALTBIE, C.J., and BROWN, J., dissenting.

DeLancey Pelgrift and Farrell J. LeRoy, both of Hartford, for appellant.

Bruce Caldwell, of Hartford, for appellees.

Argued before HINMAN, AVERY, and JENNINGS, JJ.

HINMAN Judge.

The plaintiffs in these two actions, husband and wife, were riding in a car driven by the wife in a southerly direction on Maple Avenue in Hartford, when a collision occurred with a car driven by the defendant. The latter was proceeding westerly on Bushnell Street, which intersects Maple Avenue from the east but does not cross it. The finding is not as complete in detail as is desirable, but the conclusion of the trial court that the plaintiffs' car had the right of way at the intersection necessarily imports a finding that the two cars were arriving at approximately the same time, and this is supported by the fact that the collision occurred well within the intersection, particularly in view of the finding that the plaintiffs' car did not change its speed as it approached the intersection and there is no finding of any change in the speed of the defendant's car. Also the injury to the plaintiffs' car was upon its left rear side. The trial court's conclusions that the defendant was negligent in failing to grant the right of way to the plaintiffs' car, to keep a reasonable outlook, and to have his car under proper control, are reasonable and cannot be disturbed. As the driver of the plaintiffs' car was entitled to assume that the defendant would yield her the right of way, the finding that after she saw the defendant's car on Bushnell Street before she reached the intersection she continued on without change of her speed of twenty to twenty-five miles an hour and did not again notice the defendant's car until the collision occurred, would not establish negligence on her part as matter of law. The trial court did not err in finding the defendant liable.

The trial court allowed the husband in the action he brought an item of $60 representing rental paid by him to hire another car while his own was laid up as a result of the collision. We have frequently had before us the question of the proper measure of recovery by an owner for the loss of use of his automobile due to the tortious act of another. Commercial Credit Corp. v. Miron, 108 Conn. 524, 526, 143 A. 846, and cases cited: Longworth v. McGrath, 108 Conn. 738, 143 A. 845; Mastrianni v. Apothecaries Hall Co., 109 Conn 376, 146 A. 819; Card v. Bissing, 114 Conn. 71, 78, 157 A. 644. None of those cases involved an actual expenditure made necessary in order to hire another car to replace that which was injured during the period while it could not be used. Such an expenditure is as much a proper element of recoverable damages as is any other expenditure made necessary by a tortious injury, and, at least where nothing is saved the owner by reason of the use of the hired car-and the finding in no way indicates that this was not so in this case-the amount actually expended is the measure of recovery. Goldshear v. Blank, Sup.Ct., 168 N.Y.S. 628.

The husband indorsed the writ in the action brought by the wife under the provisions of § 842d of the 1937 Supplement to the General Statutes, which permits a wife in an action for personal injuries brought by her, when a husband indorses his consent upon the writ, to recover...