Israel v. Ulrich

• Citation: 114 Conn. 599,159 A. 634
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 29 March 1932
• Parties: ISRAEL v. ULRICH et al.

159 A. 634

114 Conn. 599

ISRAEL v. ULRICH et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 29, 1932

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Finn, J.

Action by Max Israel against Adolph Ulrich and another to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants, brought to the court of common pleas and tried to the court. Judgment for plaintiff against defendant Ellis and appeal by him to this court.

No error.

Samuel E. Hoyt, of New Haven (Irving Sweedler, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellant.

Max R. Traurig, of Waterbury, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

HINMAN, J.

While the plaintiff's truck was parked at the curb on the westerly side of Willow street in Waterbury and facing in a southerly direction, a car owned by the defendant Ulrich and operated by the defendant Ellis collided with the rear of the truck. The plaintiff at the time was in a nearby house and on coming out examined his truck and saw that the impact had damaged a fender and a rear hub cap, but did not discover that the rear housing had been forced forward so as to interfere with the mechanism of the brakes and render them useless. The finding, which is not attacked, is that the injury to the brakes could not be observed in an ordinary inspection, but could be discovered only by a competent mechanic or through driving the truck and attempting to use the brakes. The plaintiff thereupon entered the truck and started to proceed down Willow street which has a steep grade, and after driving a short distance attempted to apply first the foot brake and then the emergency brake, both of which failed to hold, and the truck continued rapidly down the grade covering a course of about one-half mile before coming to a stop. During this ride the plaintiff's foot and knees were ruised and he suffered fright, which resulted in a severe mental and nervous shock.

The trial court granted a nonsuit in favor of Ulrich, but held that Ellis was negligent, that his negligence was the proximate cause of all the damage and injuries, and that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence, and awarded damages including those arising from plaintiff's fright and nervous shock.

The appellant does not now question the conclusion that he was negligent in colliding with the plaintiff's truck, and that the impact caused the damage thereto. The facts also amply support the conclusion that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence in the extent of his examination of the truck and failure to discover the effect of the collision upon the braking mechanism and in subsequently entering his car and proceeding on his way. The trial court was also justified in holding that the defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It is clear that, if the collision had occurred while the truck was in motion, and because of the resulting damage to the brakes, the plaintiff was unable thereafter to stop it and was injured in consequence, the collision could not be regarded other than as the proximate cause of his injuries. The situation here presented is not essentially different in this respect; the negligent impact was a substantial factor in producing the injuries. Block v. Pascucci, 111 Conn. 58, 60, 64, 149 A. 210; Mahoney v. Beatman, 110 Conn. 184, 195, 147 A. 762, 66 A.L.R. 1121; Lombardi v. Wallad, 98 Conn. 510, 120 A. 291.

The remaining claim, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages for the consequences of mental and nervous shock-resulting from the fright suffered by him during his ride down the hill, is based upon the contention that there can be no recovery for fright alone, unaccompanied by physical...