Jackson v. Brown

• Decision Date: 06 June 1927
• Citation: 137 A. 725,106 Conn. 143
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: JACKSON ET AL. v. BROWN.

137 A. 725

106 Conn. 143

JACKSON ET AL. v. BROWN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 6, 1927

Appeal from Superior Court, Windham County; Christopher L. Avery Judge.

Action by Frank R. Jackson and another, a concern doing business as Jackson & Sumner, against Frank Brown, to recover damages for injury to property caused by alleged negligence of defendant tried to the court. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. No error.

Samuel B. Harvey, of Willimantic, for appellant.

John Hamilton King, of Willimantic, for appellees.

MALTBIE, J.

The negligence of the defendant as alleged, and, as found by the court, is not contested upon the appeal; the single question before us is upon the defendant's claim that the legal inference and conclusion logically to be drawn from the facts found by the court are that the plaintiff was " chargeable with negligence contributing proximately and essentially to his injury." The court did not adopt an erroneous rule of law in reaching its conclusion that the plaintiff's own negligence did not directly and materially contribute to the collision between plaintiff's and defendant's automobiles. The error claimed by the defendant must therefore be that the facts found are inconsistent with the ultimate conclusion of the plaintiff's freedom from contributory negligence, or that the judgment could not have been rendered without violating the plain rules of reason. New Haven Rendering Co. v Connecticut Co., 89 Conn. 252, 253, 93 A. 528. To test this claimed error, we necessarily turn to the facts found. The collision occurred in the intersection of Windham and Valley streets, in the populous part of the city of Willimantic. Windham street runs north and south and intersects Valley Street, which runs east and west at right angles. Each street is about 30 feet wide. At about the time of the collision, the plaintiff's automobile was being operated in a southerly direction on the west side of Windham street at a speed of from 10 to 12 miles an hour. A stone wall and terrace on the west side of Windham street shut off a clear view of Valley street west of the intersection of the two streets, so that the driver of plaintiff's car could not see the defendant's car until plaintiff's car was close to the intersection, and defendant's car was about 50 feet west of the intersection. When plaintiff's car was a short distance from the intersection of these two streets, the driver saw defendant's car approaching easterly upon the south side of Valley street about 50 feet away. The plaintiff's car then entered the intersection and proceeded on the west side of Windham street until it had crossed the center line of the intersection; the front wheels of the car being then on the south line of Valley street, and its rear wheels being south of the center line of Valley street. At this point defendant's car coming from the west on the south side of Valley street ran into plaintiff's car, striking it on its right side at a point just back of the rear door, and causing the damage for the recovery of which plaintiff sues. At the time of the impact, the entire left half of Valley street...