Lassow v. Bulkley.

• Decision Date: 03 January 1946
• Citation: 132 Conn. 476,45 A.2d 714
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LASSOW v. BULKLEY.

132 Conn. 476

45 A.2d 714

LASSOW

v.BULKLEY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 3, 1946.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; McLaughlin, Judge.

Action by Jack Lassow against George E. Bulkley for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision. The issues were tried to the jury. From an adverse judgment defendant appeals.

No error.

Robert L. Halloran, of Hartford (Thomas J. Hagarty, of Hartford, on the brief), for appellant (defendant).

Morton E. Cole and Israel Libby, both of Hartford (Cyril Cole, of Hartford, on the brief), for appellee (plaintiff).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Vine Street in Hartford is a through street extending in a northerly and southerly direction. Capen Street intersects it at right angles from the east and Keney Terrace, which is a continuation of Capen Street, intersects it from the west. Both of the latter are stop streets, so-called. On the afternoon of June 10, 1941, as the plaintiff was driving an automobile southerly on Vine Street, it collided in the intersection with the car of the defendant as he was driving westerly, having emerged from Capen Street. The plaintiff sustained personal injuries from the collision. These facts are not in dispute. In this action for damages there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed. Certain corrections in the finding are sought by the defendant, but as the only corrections pressed in the brief are not material to the sole issue properly before us we do not need to consider these assignments of error. While the defendant appealed from the denial of his motion to set the verdict aside, he did not assign that ruling as error and we do not need to consider it.

Error is assigned in the court's refusal to charge in accord with seven paragraphs of requests by the defendant. What is stated in Dreher v. Smith, Conn., 45 A.2d 712, also decided this day, concerning the same course followed by counsel in that case applies here. Of the seven paragraphs, we accordingly consider this one only: ‘This statute law does not mean that a car on the right in such a case always has the right of way. There are situations and circumstances under which a car entering an intersection on the left may have the right of way over a car approaching from its right.’ Evidently the statute referred to is § 544e, Cum.Sup.1939, of the General Statutes, which provides that: ‘Each driver or operator of a vehicle approaching any intersecting public street or highway shall grant the right of way at such intersection to any vehicle approaching from his right, provided such vehicles are arriving at such intersection at approximately the same time.’

In its charge the court correctly defined the meaning of ‘intersection’ and of ‘arriving at such intersection at approximately the same time,’ which it stated was the essential element in determining the...