Infeld v. Sullivan

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Citation199 A.2d 693,151 Conn. 506
Decision Date07 April 1964
PartiesSaul A. INFELD v. William A. SULLIVAN. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

William J. Shea, Jr., Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Robert E. Courtney, Jr., Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

Eugene H. Kaplan, Waterbury, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before KING, C. J., MURPHY, ALCORN and COMLEY, JJ., and SHAPIRO, Superior Court Judge.

COMLEY, Associate Justice.

The defendant admitted liability in this case. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for compensatory damages on the first count of the complaint which alleged negligent operation of an automobile and for exemplary damages on the second count, which alleged wanton misconduct.

The defendant admitted in his answer that he ran into the motor vehicle driven by the plaintiff and that, when he did so, he was driving at an unreasonable speed and while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and was 'completely to the left of the center' of the highway. The defendant further admitted that he did not stop after the collision but drove on in an attempt to evade responsibility. In addition to these admissions, the plaintiff produced witnesses who testified that, before the collision, the defendant's car swerved back and forth on the highway, that the defendant was speeding, and that he was driving in the wrong lane.

The defendant requested the court to charge the jury that the admitted acts of driving while under the influence of liquor and of evading responsibility did not constitute wanton misconduct and that they were to disregard the second count in its entirety. The court did not grant this request and, although the charge as given is not entirely clear, it is open to the construction, claimed by the defendant, that the jury were instructed to determine, as issues of fact, whether the defendant's acts, including his admitted intoxication and evasion of responsibility, amounted to wanton misconduct as defined by the court.

The defendant claims that driving while under the influence of liquor cannot be wanton misconduct because intoxication precludes the existence of the necessary state of mind, that is, one which permits a conscious choice of a course of action either with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it or with knowledge of facts which would disclose this danger to any reasonable man. See Mooney v. Wabrek, 129 Conn. 302, 308, 27 A.2d 631; Brock v. Waldron, 127 Conn. 79, 83, 14 A.2d 713. There is authority outside Connecticut for this position. Gombos v. Ashe, 158 Cal.App.2d 517, 526, 322 P.2d 933; Russell v. Elkins, 115 Ohio App. 341, 345, 177 N.E.2d 355; note, 3 A.L.R.2d 212. The contrary rule has been adopted in Ingersoll v. Mason, 254 F.2d 899, 904 (8th Cir.); Miller v. Blanton, 213 Ark. 246, 251, 210 S.W.2d 293, 3 A.L.R.2d 203; Madison v. Wigal, 18 Ill.App.2d 564, 571, 153 N.E.2d 90; Sebastian v. Wood, 246 Iowa 94, 106, 66 N.W.2d 841. We prefer the latter rule as applied to the facts of this case. The defendant admitted that he was driving while under the influence of liquor. There was no evidence as to the degree of his intoxication. Driving while under the influence of liquor means, under the law of Connecticut, that a driver had become so affected in his mental, physical or nervous processes that he lacked to an appreciable degree the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Biswell v. Duncan
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • August 18, 1987
    ...(Taylor v. Super. Ct. of Los Angeles County, 24 Cal.3d 890, 598 P.2d 853, 157 Cal.Rptr. 693 (1979)); Connecticut, (Infeld v. Sullivan, 151 Conn. 506, 199 A.2d 693 (1964)); Delaware (Walczak v. Healy, 280 A.2d 728 (Del.1971)); Florida (Ingram v. The jurisdictions that have held that punitive......
  • Johnson v. Rogers
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • August 25, 1988
    ...293 (1948); Taylor v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 24 Cal.3d 890, 598 P.2d 854, 157 Cal.Rptr. 693 (1979); Infeld v. Sullivan, 151 Conn. 506, 199 A.2d 693 (1964); Walczak v. Healy, 280 A.2d 728 (Del.1971); Ingram v. Pettit, 340 So.2d 922 (Fla.1976); Chitwood v. Stoner, 60 Ga.App. 59......
  • Smith v. Gray Concrete Pipe Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • December 4, 1972
    ...96 (1961) (wanton disregard of rights and safety of others) (rear end collision while intoxicated);Connecticut: Infeld v. Sullivan, 151 Conn. 506, 199 A.2d 693 (1964) (wanton misconduct) (drunken driving, speeding and not stopping after collision);Delaware: Sheats v. Bowen, 318 F.Supp. 640 ......
  • O'Dell v. Kozee
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • September 28, 2012
    ...to the operation of the machine”); accord Higgins v. Champ, 161 Conn. 200, 203, 286 A.2d 313 (1971) (same); Infeld v. Sullivan, 151 Conn. 506, 509, 199 A.2d 693 (1964) (same). 24. The trial court decision that this court affirmed in Sanders v. Officers Club of Connecticut, Inc., supra, 196 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT