Kalamian v. Kalamian

• Decision Date: 12 December 1927
• Citation: 107 Conn. 86,139 A. 635
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: KALAMIAN v. KALAMIAN.

139 A. 635

107 Conn. 86

KALAMIAN v. KALAMIAN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 12, 1927

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

Action by Mary Kalamian against David Kalamian to recover for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by negligence of the defendant in the operation of his automobile, in which the plaintiff was a passenger. Judgment for plaintiff for $2,500, and defendant appeals. No error.

Arthur T. Keefe, of New London, for appellant.

Clayton B. Smith, of New London, and Benjamin H Hewitt, of Mystic, for appellee.

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

HINMAN, J.

The allegation of negligence upon which the plaintiff relied was that the defendant applied his brakes so suddenly and with such great force and violence, and so carelessly and negligently operated his car, that it suddenly swerved and tipped over, throwing the plaintiff out upon a cement road. The finding states, in substance, that, when the defendant started to drive down a long hill, his car was in good condition, and was traveling about 20 miles per hour, which speed was gradually increased as the car proceeded down the hill, until the defendant lost control of it; that he then applied both foot and emergency brakes, whereupon the car immediately swerved off the cement and onto the shoulder of the road and tipped over.

The facts found are clearly sufficient to support the conclusion that the defendant was negligent as alleged, but the defendant seeks to have the finding corrected in various respects, particularly to the effect that the defendant, before applying the brakes, heard a noise which led him to believe something was the matter with the car, whereupon he attempted to stop it, and that the cause of the overturn of the car is unknown. The finding upon this point, as made, accords in substance with the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, including the defendant himself. The claim that a noise was heard before the brakes were applied is based upon statements obtained from the defendant, after the accident, by attorneys for his insurer, which statements were offered in evidence in contradiction of his testimony, on the trial, to the effect that it was the rate of speed which the car had attained that led him to apply both brakes, and it was not until then that he heard a noise. This apparent contradiction presented a question of credibility for the trial court, in the determination of which very likely the circumstances under which the statements were obtained, and the defendant's unfamiliarity with the English language, may have been factors. Lampe v. Simpson, 106 Conn. 356, 358, 138 A. 141.

The defendant...