Lange v. Hoyt

• Decision Date: 29 March 1932
• Citation: 159 A. 575,114 Conn. 590
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LANGE v. HOYT (tw cases).

159 A. 575

114 Conn. 590

LANGE v. HOYT (tw cases).

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 29, 1932

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John Rufus Booth Judge.

Action by Minelda Lange, a minor, against Bessie M. Hoyt, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence, and action by Minette B. Lange against Bessie M. Hoyt to recover expenses incurred by plaintiff as result of injuries to her daughter. The cases were tried together to a jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

No error.

Raymond E. Baldwin, of Bridgeport, and J. Moss Ives, of Danbury, for appellant.

Philo C. Calhoun, of Bridgeport, for appellees.

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

AVERY J.

The appellant assigns error in the refusal of the court to set aside the verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs; in refusing to charge the jury in some particulars as requested by the defendant, and also in the charge as delivered.

From the evidence, the jury might reasonably have found the following facts: May 2, 1930, the plaintiff Minelda Lange, a minor eight years of age, was alighting from a school bus then stationary and facing in a northeasterly direction upon the right-hand side of the Georgetown-Bethel turnpike, a highway in the town of Redding. The bus was standing approximately opposite the home of the plaintiff, located on the northwest side of the road which at this point runs approximately southwest and northeast, and consists of a hard-surface foundation of macadam, twenty-five feet in width, with shoulders five feet wide. From the plaintiff's house, the highway extends a distance of more than six hundred feet to the northeast in substantially a straight line. The plaintiff, before alighting from the bus, looked along the road to the northeast, and observed the defendant's automobile at a point in front of a neighbor's house, a distance of about six hundred feet. She then immediately alighted from the bus on the right-hand front side, and walked to the rear, and started directly across the road towards the driveway of her home, when she was struck by the left front part of the bumper and left headlight of defendant's automobile, and carried a distance of approximately twenty feet by the impact. The automobile, before stopping, proceeded a distance of some twenty to forty feet beyond the place where the body of the plaintiff had been carried. Prior to the collision, the defendant was driving in her La Salle sedan in a southwesterly direction on the highway, approaching the school bus. There were from ten to fifteen children in the bus, most of whom were talking. The windows were open and several children were looking out, or had their arms or hands projecting, so that the character of the vehicle and of its occupants could have been readily observed. At the time of the collision, defendant's hearing was substantially impaired. She failed to give any warning of the approach of her automobile by horn or other signal, failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to apply her brakes or reduce the speed of her car prior to the collision, and failed to have her vehicle under reasonable control.

Upon these facts, it is clearly a question to be decided by the jury whether or not the defendant was negligent in the operation of her automobile, and whether the plaintiff Minelda, considering her age, experience, and judgment, was free from contributory negligence. Lederer v. Connecticut Co., 95 Conn. 520, 525, 111 A. 785; Rappa v. Connecticut Co., 96 Conn. 285, 287, 114 A. 81. Upon the evidence presented, the decision of these questions was for the jury. The trial court did not err in refusing to set aside the verdict.

The plaintiff Minelda sustained a fracture of her left arm, and a fracture and dislocation of the pelvis. Upon the trial, evidence was offered, and the plaintiff claimed, that there was a deformity of the pelvis whereby the right side of the pelvis was displaced upward about one-half inch, so as to diminish the size of the pelvic outlet; and that this deformity was permanent and would interfere with normal childbirth when the plaintiff reached maturity.

It was the claim of the defendant that the condition of the arm and pelvis was aggravated by lack of proper medical treatment after the accident. The plaintiff Minette B. Lange was a believer in Christian Science and had brought her daughter, Minelda, up in the same belief. On the day of the accident, the mother called a medical practitioner who gave first-aid treatment, and advised the removal of the child to the Danbury Hospital. She was removed to the hospital on the same day, where efforts were made by the physicians to reduce the fracture, and a temporary splint was applied, and X-rays taken. The defendant claims that the mother then took the child home against the advice of the physicians; and that, thereafter, medical advice was not had for the child's injuries until the 15th day of May, when a physician visited the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant and recommended that medical and surgical treatment be secured immediately, but that such medical and surgical treatment was not obtained until May 27th, when Minelda was taken to New York for X-ray examination; and, thereafter, was treated by a surgeon. In substance, the claim of the defendant is that because of lack of surgical treatment from the day of the accident until May 27th, the plaintiff's injuries were aggravated; and that proper treatment by regular physicians and surgeons from the beginning would have effected a substantial cure of her injuries so that no permanent disability would have resulted therefrom.

On the other hand, the plaintiff Minelda Lange claims that she reasonably relied upon her mother to provide such curative agencies as the latter thought necessary; and the mother claimed that on the day of the accident, in addition to first-aid treatment by a regular surgeon, she secured the services of a surgical nurse and had Minelda's arm set by a qualified surgeon at the Danbury Hospital; that from the time of the accident to the time of the trial Minelda was cared for by a competent nurse, had frequent X-rays and treatments by a competent orthopedic surgeon, and between May 2d and May 25th was kept quiet and in bed at home; that no other treatment was suggested by the surgeons, nor was she ever informed that further surgical treatments would be useful until the defendant's physician so recommended about May 21st; after which, and as soon as possible, the services of a competent orthopedist and a competent X-ray specialist were engaged on behalf of her daughter.

In view of these claims, the defendant in six of her requests for instructions asked the court to inform the jury as...