Lanfare v. Putnam

• Decision Date: 05 July 1932
• Citation: 115 Conn. 267,161 A. 242
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LANFARE v. PUTNAM.

161 A. 242

115 Conn. 267

LANFARE v. PUTNAM.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 5, 1932

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Newell Jennings Judge.

Action by Antoinette Lanfare against Fred J. Putnam to recover damages for personal Injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. Plaintiff recovered verdict and judgment, and defendant appeals.

Error judgment set aside, and new trial ordered.

H Frederick Day and William A. Bree, both of New Haven, for appellant.

Stanley Dunn and Edward W. Lynch, both of New Haven, for appellee.

MALTBIE, C.J.

This is an action by a pedestrian to recover damages resulting from being run into by an automobile driven by the defendant, while she was crossing a city street. The defendant offered no evidence except upon the matter of damages, and consequently the finding states only the facts as to liability which the plaintiff claimed to have proved. These are in brief as follows: The plaintiff, then about sixty-eight years of age, started to cross a one-way street in New Haven at a crossing which pedestrians were accustomed to use at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of January 5, 1931, while it was still light enough to see. She walked at her usual gait, which she described as " fast. " She had a clear view down the street in the direction from which the defendant was approaching. After looking both ways and seeing only one car half a block away, she proceeded straight across the street, looking neither way, until she had almost reached the opposite side, when she was struck by the defendant's car. The defendant did not see her until his automobile struck her, although he had ample time to observe her and to avoid striking her, and he gave no warning of his approach. The claims of proof do not state how broad the street was at this point, and we cannot assume it was unusually narrow or that it presented any conditions not ordinarily found in city streets.

The principal claim of error assigned upon the finding is the fact that the trial court upon this state of facts submitted to the jury the issue of the plaintiff's right to recover upon the doctrine of the last clear chance. The facts are almost identical with those before this court in McLaughlin v. Schreiber, 105 Conn. 610, 136 A. 467 which undoubtedly the trial court followed. But for reasons given at length in Correnti v. Catino, 115 Conn. 213, 160 A. 892, we have...