Hygienic Ice Co. v. Conn. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1915 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | HYGIENIC ICE CO. v. CONNECTICUT CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Lucien F. Burpee, Judge.
Action by the Hygienic Ice Company against the Connecticut Company to recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff's motor truck through a collision with a street railway car of the defendant which was alleged to have been caused by the negligence of its servants. The ease was tried to a jury, and the court, upon motion of the defendant, directed a verdict in its favor, and from the judgment thereon plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Dixwell avenue, a main thoroughfare in New Haven, leads easterly from the suburbs into the center of the city. Bassett street is a side street which crosses it substantially at right angles. Double tracks of the defendant are laid in the center of Dixwell avenue. One of the plaintiff's motor trucks, in the control of its servant, was proceeding easterly along the southerly or right-hand side of Dixwell avenue, approaching Bassett street, when the driver turned to the left to cross the tracks of the defendant and enter Bassett street. When he was proceeding across the tracks and his truck was nearly clear of them, one of the defendant's cars, going westerly, struck the right-hand rear wheel of the truck, and caused the damage which was the subject of the suit. No curve in the street obstructed the vision in either direction at or near the point of accident.
J. Birney Tuttle, of New Haven, for appellant. Thomas M. Steele and Carroll C. Hincks, both of New Haven, for appellee.
PRENTICE, C. J. (after stating the facts as above). Clearly there was evidence tending to establish negligence on the part of those in charge of the operation of the defendant's car meriting submission to the jury. There was also evidence worthy of the jury's consideration in support of the defendant's contention that the plaintiff's servant in control of the motor truck failed to exercise due care when he turned across the defendant's tracks with the car approaching. It may be assumed, for the purposes of this case, without so deciding, that this evidence was so conclusive as to compel a finding that he was so negligent. That, however, did not cover the whole field of inquiry for the trier. It still remained to be determined whether this negligence on the part of the plaintiff's driver was such as entitled it to be regarded as a proximate cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Correnti v. Catino
...160 A. 892 115 Conn. 213 CORRENTI v. CATINO. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.June 21, 1932 ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, Fairfield County; ... continues as an efficient and substantial factor down to the ... injury and directly contributes to produce it. Hygienic ... Ice Co. v. Connecticut Co., 90 Conn. 21, 96 A. 152; ... Radwick v. Goldstein, supra; Fine v. Connecticut ... Co., supra; Tullock v ... ...
-
Correnti v. Catino
...as an efficient and substantial factor down to the injury and directly contributes to produce it. Hygienic Ice Co. v. Connecticut Co., 90 Conn. 21, 96 A. 152; Radwick v. Goldstein, supra; Fine v. Connecticut Co., supra; Tullock v. Connecticut Co., 94 Conn. 201, 207, 108 A. 556; Pattenden v.......
-
Mahoney v. Beatman
... 147 A. 762 110 Conn. 184 MAHONEY v. BEATMAN. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. November 7, 1929 ... [147 A. 763] ... Appeal ... from ... has caused, each will be liable for the whole. Bevan on ... Negligence (4th Ed.) 79; Byrne v. Wilson, 15 Ir. C ... L. R. 332: Hygienic Ice Co. v. Conn. Co., 90 Conn ... 21, 23, 96 A. 152 ... These ... rules to which we have referred are the principal bases upon ... ...
-
Mahoney v. Beatman
...each will be liable for the whole. Bevan on Negligence (4th Ed.) 79; Byrne v. Wilson, 15 Ir. C. L. R. 332: Hygienic Ice Co. v. Conn. Co., 90 Conn. 21, 23, 96 A. These rules to which we have referred are the principal bases upon which the courts rest the doctrine or principle of proximate ca......