Latham v. Hankey

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Citation117 Conn. 5,166 A. 400
Decision Date23 May 1933
PartiesLATHAM v. HANKEY.

166 A. 400

117 Conn. 5

LATHAM
v.
HANKEY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 23, 1933


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 [117 Conn. 7] 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Paige v. St. Andrew's Roman Catholic Church Corp., (SC 15866)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 3, 1999
    ...are 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 The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with direction to grant the defendant's motion for ju......
  • Paige v. Saint Andrew's Roman Catholic Church Corp., 15866
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • September 15, 1998
    ...definite 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 ......
  • Munn v. Hotchkiss Sch., 3:09–cv–919 SRU.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • June 5, 2014
    ...facts 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 ......
  • Munn v. Hotchkiss Sch., 3:09–cv–919 (SRU).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • June 5, 2014
    ...facts 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 93......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT