James v. Von Schuckman

• Decision Date: 09 August 1932
• Citation: 115 Conn. 490,162 A. 3
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: JAMES v. VON SCHUCKMAN.

162 A. 3

115 Conn. 490

JAMES v. VON SCHUCKMAN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

August 9, 1932

Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County; Alfred C. Baldwin Judge.

Action by Raphael James, administrator, against Frederick K. Von Schuckman, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, brought to the superior court and tried to the court. Judgment for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff.

No error.

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

George N. Foster, of Bridgeport, for appellant.

J Warren Upson, of Waterbury, for appellee.

BANKS J.

Plaintiff's intestate was injured in an automobile accident while riding as a guest in a car operated by the defendant in North Kingston, R. I., on September 7, 1929, and died as a result of his injuries on September 21, 1929. Plaintiff's intestate and the defendant, aged, respectively, twenty and eighteen, left Watch Hill in the evening of September 6th in the latter's Chevrolet coupe, with two girl companions. They drove to Providence, which they reached shortly after midnight, and after driving about Providence a short time proceeded to return to Watch Hill. After rounding a fairly gradual reverse curve in the road, the car, which was being driven at a speed of about thirty miles an hour, went into a skid, traveled sideways for a distance of about 20 feet, and the right side of the car came into contact with a tree on the left side of the road. The car was badly damaged and all the occupants injured. The highway was of concrete, 20 feet in width, and nearly level. The point of the accident was about 175 feet beyond the curve. At the time of the accident it was raining hard and the surface of the road was wet. There was no other traffic in the vicinity. The car was equipped with a windshield wiper, headlights, and four-wheel brakes, which were in good condition, and one of the rear tires was new. Before reaching Providence the defendant and the plaintiff's intestate had had two drinks from a pint bottle of whisky which the latter had procured. At the time of the accident the plaintiff's intestate was seated on the right of the driver's seat, one of the girls was in his lap, and the other was seated between him and the defendant, who was driving the car.

The court found that the plaintiff had not sustained the burden of proving the negligence of the defendant, and that plaintiff's intestate was contributorily negligent in procuring and giving the whisky to the defendant, and in occupying the seat upon which the operator of the car and the two girls also sat. The plaintiff contends that the facts set forth in the finding, which it also claims should be corrected, do not support these conclusions.

The plaintiff does not claim that the defendant was operating the car while under the influence of liquor, nor that it was negligence for him to operate it with four people sitting upon the driver's seat. On the contrary, he contends that the defendant had but a single drink of whisky several hours before the accident which had no effect upon his operation of the car, and that he was not handicapped in its...