Lawrence v. Abrams

• Decision Date: 10 June 1936
• Citation: Lawrence v. Abrams, 121 Conn. 480, 185 A. 414 (Conn. 1936)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LAWRENCE v. ABRAMS.

185 A. 414

121 Conn. 480

LAWRENCE v. ABRAMS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 10, 1936

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Carl Foster, Judge.

Action by Joseph Lawrence against Irving Abrams, to recover damages for injuries to person and property alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant. The case was tried to a jury. From a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

No error.

Raymond E. Baldwin, of Bridgeport (Julius Maretz, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellant.

John Keogh, Jr., of South Norwalk (John Keogh, of South Norwalk on the brief), for appellee.

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

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages resulting from a collision between an automobile which he was operating and one driven by the defendant. The collision occurred upon the Milford turnpike, which is a concrete road consisting of four strips, each nine feet wide. The plaintiff offered evidence that the car driven by the defendant, in turning out sharply to pass a car ahead of it, while going at high speed, crossed the center line of the highway and ran into the former's car when it was well upon its own right side of the center line. The defendant, on the other hand, offered evidence that the plaintiff, turning to his left to pass a car ahead of him, drove well beyond the center line of the highway and ran into the defendant's car, which was proceeding upon its own right side of the center. Whatever we might think as to the weight of testimony, it was for the jury to pass upon its credibility and determine which version of the accident it would accept as true. Testimony as to certain tire marks, offered by the defendant, which, if the jury believed it, would have gone far to support his claim, was disputed by other testimony which we cannot say the jury could not reasonably have accepted.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $15,000 damages. They might reasonably have found the plaintiff's special damages amounted to about $1,000; that as a result of the accident one of his arms had to be amputated, and he underwent a second operation to remove chips of bone; that he suffered much pain and discomfort from the injury and these operations; that he had been earning $14 a week working in a fur factory and an additional $5 a week for work he did over the week-ends; and that the...