Latham v. Hankey

Decision Date23 May 1933
CitationLatham v. Hankey, 117 Conn. 5, 166 A. 400 (Conn. 1933)
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesLATHAM v. HANKEY.

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

Action by A. E. Latham, administrator, against Phillip Z. Hankey administrator, for damages for injury and death of plaintiff's decedent, alleged to have been caused by the heedless and reckless disregard of the rights of others, on the part of the defendant's decedent, brought to the superior court and tried to a jury; verdict, and judgment for the plaintiff, motion to set aside denied, and the defendant appealed. Error and new trial ordered.

George C. Morgan, of New London, for appellant.

Arthur T. Keefe, of New London, and Leon J. Beisham, of Waterford for appellee.

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

HAINES, Judge.

The record shows little or no conflict in the evidence. Giving it the most favorable construction in support of the verdict the jury could reasonably have found that the plaintiff's decedent, Latham, was seated at the right of the defendant's decedent, Merrill, in an automobile driven by the latter in a general easterly direction toward New London on the evening of November 10, 1931, on the Boston Post road so called. The night was clear and the roadway dry, and it was familiar to Merrill, who had driven over it often. At some time before 10:15 O'clock the car, on a steep down grade, approached a Curve in the roadway to the left, commonly known as Dead Man's Curve, in the town, of Old Lyme near the boundary line of the town of East Lyme. About two hundred feet before theCurve begins was a highway sign beside the road indicatingthere was a Curve ahead. A second sign directed drivers to keep to the right and another indicated, proper speed. About sixty feet before the Curve began, brake marks well within the right edge of the concrete were found after the accident, which continued for ten feet, and then skid marks led off the concrete onto the shoulder of the road. At this point the shoulder was about six feet wide, and the concrete roadway was about twenty-four and a half feet. After leaving the concrete, the tire marks continued on the shoulder for fifty feet to the end of a highway fence, and the fence was demolished from that point for about fifty-seven feet, then the tire marks turned sharply to the right over an embankment and across an abandoned roadway, to the rear wheels of the Merrill car, which stood upright at this spot when officers arrived. Two state police officers from the Westbrook barracks went to the scene in response to a telephone call by some one whose identify is not disclosed in the record, which was received about 10:15 p. m., and they reached the scene within fifteen or twenty minutes. They found two other Officers alreadythere from the New London barracks. When the Westbrook officers arrived, they found, the car in the position stated, with the dead body of Merrill in the driver's seat and the body of Latham sitting beside him. The right front tire was off, but neither that nor the other tires were deflated. The right front and side of the car was damaged.there is no evidence as to the condition of the brakes. A long plank which has been a part of the highway fence had entered the windshield, striking Latham in the neck, severing his head, which was found in the tonneau, and the plank protruded from the rear of the car. Another plank had also penetrated the windshield and passed over the shoulder of Merrill, pinning his head and body to the door by his side. The death of Latham was clearly the result of being struck by the plank, but the record furnishes no evidence whatever as to whetherthere was any observable physical injury to Merrill. It is purely conjectural whether his death was caused by the shock of the collision with the fence, or the pressure of the plank which was found resting against his body and head, or whether death came to him from some natural cause, such as a heart attack while driving at or about the time the brakes were momentarily applied and...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
35 cases
  • Paige v. St. Andrew's Roman Catholic Church Corp.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 3, 1999
    ...unable to find in the evidence a sufficient basis for it, and the motion to set it aside should have been granted." Latham v. Hankey, 117 Conn. 5, 10-11, 166 A. 400 (1933). The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with direction to grant the defendant's motion fo......
  • Paige v. Saint Andrew's Roman Catholic Church Corp., 15866
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • September 15, 1998
    ...facts, and any conclusion reached without such evidential basis is a mere surmise or guess. " (Emphasis added.) Latham v. Hankey, 117 Conn. 5, 10-11, 166 A. 400 (1933); see also Boehm v. Kish, supra, 201 Conn. at 389, 517 A.2d 624 ("[w]hen an element necessary to a cause of action cannot be......
  • Munn v. Hotchkiss Sch.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • June 5, 2014
    ...in evidence, whether that evidence be oral or circumstantial, is a recognized and proper procedure....”) (citing Latham v. Hankey, 117 Conn. 5, 10–11, 166 A. 400 (1933) ); Vetre v. Keene, 181 Conn. 136, 140–41, 434 A.2d 327 (1980) ; O'Brien v. Cordova, 171 Conn. 303, 305–06, 370 A.2d 933 (1......
  • Service Road Corp. v. Quinn
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 15, 1997
    ...v. Macero, 146 Conn. 705, 708, 155 A.2d 750 (1959). An inference must have some definite basis in the facts. See Latham v. Hankey, 117 Conn. 5, 10-11, 166 A. 400 (1933)." Boehm v. Kish, 201 Conn. 385, 389, 517 A.2d 624 (1986); see also Kuczon v. Tomkievicz, 100 Conn. 560, 567-68, 124 A. 226......
  • Get Started for Free