Kiely v. Ragali
| Citation | 106 A. 502,93 Conn. 454 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 02 May 1919 |
| Parties | KIELY v. RAGALI et al. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas Court, Fairfield County; John J Walsh, Judge.
Action by Loretta Kiely against Daniel Ragali, Jr., and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. No error.
The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove these facts On August 2, 1917, when the accident occurred, the plaintiff was the owner of an automobile which on July 31, 1917, had been purchased from the Blue Ribbon garage, a duly licensed dealer and manufacturer of the city of Bridgeport. The automobile at the time of the accident was in the exclusive control and custody of the Blue Ribbon garage. When the accident took place, the plaintiff had applied for the registration of this automobile in her name. This was issued to her the day after the accident happened. At this time the automobile bore the numbers and name plate of the Blue Ribbon garage, issued by the commissioner of motor vehicles. It was conceded that: The automobile of the plaintiff at the time of the collision was operated by one Edward J. Kiely, father of the plaintiff, a person more than 16 years of age. Kiely had not, at that time, obtained from the commissioner of motor vehicles a license to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways of the state. At the time of the collision, Kiely, operating the automobile of the plaintiff, was accompanied by one Emil Engleman, an employé of the Blue Ribbon garage, who had been licensed previously to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of the state. Engleman at this time did not have with him his license card issued to him by the commissioner of motor vehicles.
In the complaint negligence was alleged among other things in driving the automobile at a dangerous and unlawful rate of speed, without regard for the safety and rights of others lawfully using the highway; in not having the same equipped with proper appliances for stopping the car, and in not giving the plaintiff the right of way when she was approaching an intersecting street on the defendants' right-hand side of the roadway as required by Public Acts 1917, c. 333. These allegations were denied, and the defendants in their answer and the second defense also aver that the motor vehicle which is alleged to have been injured by the negligence of the defendant was not, at the time of the injury claimed, operated in accordance with the statutes of the state of Connecticut, nor at this time was it registered in accordance with the statutes of Connecticut in force at the time regarding the registration, numbering, use licensing, and speed of motor vehicles; nor was it at the time operated by a person legally authorized or licensed to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of Connecticut.
Section 1565, G. S. 1918, on which defendant relies, is as follows:
" No recovery shall be had in the courts of this state by the owner of a motor vehicle which has not been legally registered in accordance with sections 1524, 1525, 1526, 1527 or 1528, for injury to person or property received by reason of the operation of such motor vehicle upon any public highway, unless such motor vehicle is the property of a nonresident and is within the provisions of section 1537; nor shall such recovery be had if said motor vehicle be legally registered but was being operated by an unlicensed person in violation of any provision of sections 1530, 1531 or 1532."
Section 1552, relating to the construction of the Motor Vehicle Law, provides that:
" This chapter shall be construed with reason and in a manner to cause no undue hardship to any person who is not willfully or knowingly guilty of a violation thereof."
The reasons of appeal assign error in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant, the refusal of the court to charge as requested, and in the charge as given.
Robert H. Gould, of Bridgeport, for appellants.
Frank L. Wilder, of Bridgeport, for appellee.
One assignment of error submits the proposition that because it appears that Engleman, the operator of the car, did not have his license card with him when the accident occurred there could be no recovery by the plaintiff. Upon this branch of the case the jury were instructed that:
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Boston & M. R. R.
... ... Those matters do not concern his fitness to operate. Kiely v ... 143 A. 522 ... Ragali, 93 Conn. 454, 106 A. 502. They are separately provided for elsewhere. Section 7. The reason for this prohibition is ... ...
-
Hill Construction Company v. State of Connecticut
...to eschew overly technical statutory constructions which would interfere with the clear purpose of the legislation. See Kiely v. Ragali, 93 Conn. 454, 106 A. 502 (1919); Cusack v. Laube & Co., Inc., 104 Conn. 487, 133 A. 584 (1926). The purpose of the statute and ordinance here challenged i......
-
Sprinkle v. NC WILDLIFE RESOURCES COM'N
...it occurred. This difference was the measure of damages that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.'" Id. (quoting Kiely v. Ragali, 93 Conn. 454, 106 A. 502, 504 (1919)). In North Carolina, it is clear the cost of repair can be evidenced by the difference of the before and after value of in......
-
Dado v. Jeeninga, 45A03-0004-CV-129.
...P. 392, 394-395 (1921) (defendant bears burden to show that cost of repairs exceeds diminution in value of property); Kiely v. Ragali, 93 Conn. 454, 106 A. 502, 504 (1919) (plaintiff entitled to recover cost of repairs when defendant failed to show how recovery impermissible); Globe Motors,......