Hunt v. Central Vermont Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 November 1923
• Citation: 122 A. 563,99 Conn. 657
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HUNT v. CENTRAL VERMONT RY. CO. (TWO CASES.)

122 A. 563

99 Conn. 657

HUNT v. CENTRAL VERMONT RY. CO. (TWO CASES.)

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

November 7, 1923

Appeal from Superior Court, Tolland County; Frank D. Haines, Judge.

Actions by Clayton E. Hunt, guardian, and by Clayton E. Hunt administrator, against the Central Vermont Railway Company for damages for injuries to Francis H. Hunt, a minor, and for death of Mabel F. Hunt, caused by a grade crossing collision between an automobile and a freight train. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff in each case. Defendant appeals from the denial in each case of motions to set aside the veridict as against the evidence, and because the damages were excessive. No error.

Charles B. Whittlesey, of New London, for appellant.

William A. King, of Willimantic, for appellee.

BEACH J.

The collision occurred on May 25, 1922, at a grade crossing in the town of Franklin, known as Williams crossing, at which the view of the track southerly of the crossing is obstructed. The decedent and her son, the injured minor, were riding as invited guests in an automobile owned and driven by T. Newton Owen. It was not disputed that the crossing was protected by a signal known as the Hall visible and audible signal, of a type approved by the Public Utilities Commission, connected with track circuits extending about 1,000 feet in either direction from the crossing, and that it was designed to drop a red disc over an opening in the face of the signal and to place a red glass in front of a light at the top of the signal whenever a train approaching the crossing entered upon either of the track circuits, and also to cause both opening and light continuously to show red, and an electric bell continuously to ring, until after the train passed over the crossing. The signal bore in large letters the legend " Danger. Do not cross when red." No negligence is charged in the selection of this type of signal.

The negligence alleged is that the defendant on or before the date of the accident negligently operated the signal so that it did not work, and showed no red disc when a train was approaching, and gave no timely warning to travelers on the highway that a train was approaching and about to reach the crossing.

As to the legal duty of the defendant it is not claimed that the defendant was an insurer, but that it was bound to use reasonable care in maintaining the signal so that it would operate normally and give timely notice of an approaching train, having in mind the fact that when not red it operated as an invitation to travelers, not otherwise warned, to cross the tracks.

To support the allegation of negligence the plaintiff offered the testimony of Mr. Owen that as he approached the crossing he slowed down, and watched the signal; that it showed clear until he was almost on the track and then flashed red when he was not more than 18 feet away; and that he did not see or hear the engine until it was upon him some 20 feet away. As the decedent and the injured minor were riding as invited guests and took no part in the operation of the automobile no question of their contributory negligence is raised. The engine struck the front of the automobile. A witness, Tatro who was in a more elevated position from which he could see the automobile,...