Leonard v. Gambardella

• Decision Date: 05 November 1935
• Citation: 181 A. 542,120 Conn. 445
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LEONARD v. GAMBARDELLA et al. PEDUZZI v. SAME.

181 A. 542

120 Conn. 445

LEONARD v. GAMBARDELLA et al.

PEDUZZI v. SAME.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

November 5, 1935

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Carl Foster, Judge.

Actions to recover damages by James Leonard and by Mary Peduzzi against Paolo Gambardella and others for injuries received when struck by a motor vehicle. Verdict for the plaintiff in each case, and defendants appeal.

No error.

Samuel E. Hoyt and Irving Sweedler, both of New Haven, for appellants.

William L. Hadden and Walter T. Faulkner, both of New Haven (Daniel Pouzzner and Charles A. Hadden, both of New Haven, on the brief), for appellees.

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

AVERY, Judge.

These two cases were tried together. With the exception of damages the allegations in the complaints were substantially the same. The plaintiffs alleged that on March 29, 1934, at about 8:30 p. m., while crossing Whalley avenue in New Haven, in the exercise of due care, from the north to the south side on a crosswalk at the intersection of Hobart street, they were struck by a motortruck owned by the defendant Gambardella and operated by his servant and agent, the defendant Carpentier and were injured. It was alleged that Carpentier was " reckless, careless and negligent in that he was operating the motor truck" at a rate of speed greater than was reasonable and proper having regard for the width, traffic, and use of the highway, and in such a manner as to endanger the life, limb, and property of persons lawfully using it; that he failed to have the motor vehicle under proper control, or to keep a proper lookout for persons lawfully crossing Whalley avenue, and neglected to sound a horn, or give other signal of his approach, or apply his brakes, or reduce the speed of the vehicle when approaching the intersection.

The cases were tried to the jury and verdict returned for the plaintiff in each case. The errors assigned upon these appeals are the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict, and claimed errors in the instructions of the court. From the evidence, the jury might reasonably have found the facts as follows: Whalley avenue runs east and west and Hobart street runs north and south, entering Whalley avenue from the south but not crossing it. The width of Whalley avenue from curb to curb is 64 1/2 feet, and approximately in the center of the highway are located two sets of trolley rails. On March 29, 1934, at about 8:30 p. m., the plaintiffs drove in an automobile out Whalley avenue in a westerly direction, and parked their car near the north curb a short distance westerly from the intersection of Hobart street. They then walked easterly upon the sidewalk to a point opposite the westerly sidewalk on Hobart street and proceeded to cross Whalley avenue on a crosswalk customarily used by pedestrians in crossing at that point. Before starting to cross, both plaintiffs looked in both directions east and west, on Whalley avenue and observed no traffic. Upon reaching a point between the two rails of the southerly track, the plaintiff Leonard observed lights of an approaching motor vehicle which appeared to him to be about 150 feet to the west. The plaintiffs continued to cross the street and, when about midway between the most southerly rail and the southerly curbstone of Whalley avenue, were struck by the defendant's truck and injured. At the time, the truck was going at a speed of between 45 and 50 miles an hour. It did not slacken...