Kearns v. Widman
| Decision Date | 22 December 1919 |
| Citation | 108 A. 661,94 Conn. 257 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | KEARNS v. WIDMAN. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Joel H. Reed, Judge.
Action for personal injuries by Mary Kearns against Ida Widman. From judgment for plaintiff for $20,000, defendant appeals. No error.
Where the driver of an automobile operated at a reckless rate of speed toward the trolley car from which plaintiff was alighting, and, though she saw the trolley car and plaintiff gave no warning of approach, and failed to slacken speed, or to stop or even try to, but actually increased speed and ran plaintiff down, the case was one of gross and culpable negligence, sustaining claim for exemplary damages.
Arthur B. O'Keefe and David E. Fitzgerald, both of New Haven for appellant.
Jacob P. Goodhart, of New Haven, for appellee.
The principal ground of appeal which is pressed upon the brief of the defendant is that the question of exemplary damages should not have been submitted to the jury, because neither the allegations of the complaint nor the evidence before the jury warranted its submission.
The complaint alleges that the injuries sued for were caused by the operation by the defendant of an automobile at so high and reckless a speed that she was unable to apply the brakes thereon and to stop the automobile after she saw the plaintiff alight from the car in time to prevent the automobile from running over her. And, further, that the defendant failed to sound a horn or give any other warning of her approach, and failed to keep a proper lookout for persons lawfully on the highway, and failed to stop the car, in violation of the statute, after she saw the plaintiff in a position of danger at the intersection of Elm street and Broadway, two streets in New Haven.
As a result of these acts of negligence the automobile ran over the plaintiff while she, in the exercise of due care, was alighting from this trolley car, and the defendant thereby " acted and proceeded with culpable indifference and flagrant and gross recklessness carelessness, and negligence."
The operation of an automobile at so reckless a rate of speed that, although the driver of the automobile saw the plaintiff in a position of danger, and although the driver was approaching a trolley car which had stopped at the intersection of two streets, the driver gave no warning, and failed to slacken the speed of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewandoski v. Finkel
...stated in the specific allegations. The plaintiff relies on our decisions in Mezzi v. Taylor, 99 Conn. 1, 120 A. 871; Kearns v. Widman, 94 Conn. 257, 108 A. 661; Eckert v. Levinson, 91 Conn. 338, 99 A. 699. In these and other cases we have sustained verdicts or judgments based upon negligen......
- Widman v. Kearns
-
Malon v. Adley Express Co., Inc.
... ... defendants' car was not properly equipped. Eckert v ... Levinson, 91 Conn. 338, 340, 99 A. 699; Kearns v ... Widman, 94 Conn. 257, 259, 108 A. 661 ... There ... is not error ... The ... other Judges ... ...
-
Goldfarb v. Bragg, 199127
...on the part of the defendant is found, exemplary or punitive damages are appropriate for consideration by the trier. Kearns v. Widman, 94 Conn. 257, 259, 108 A. 661 (1919). In this case the evidence before the court is that the defendant smelled of liquor and that he collided with the autom......