Mastrianni v. Apothecaries Hall Co.
| Decision Date | 10 July 1929 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | MASTRIANNI v. APOTHECARIES HALL CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Newell Jennings Judge.
Action by Ralph Mastrianni against the Apothecaries Hall Company to recover damages for personal injuries caused the plaintiff by the alleged negligence of the defendant, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the court. Judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by defendant. No error.
M Joseph Blumenfeld and David R. Woodhouse, both of Hartford for appellant.
Theobald E. Conway and William W. Gager, both of Waterbury, for appellee.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS, JJ.
The trucks of plaintiff and defendant came into collision at about the base of the public highway over Southington Mountain, causing substantial damage to plaintiff's truck. None of the corrections of the finding, if made, could change the result reached. The conclusion of the court from the subordinate facts that the defendant's driver was guilty of the negligence charged, and that the plaintiff's driver was free from contributory negligence, must be sustained.
The remaining assignment of error is that the plaintiff failed to prove damages for loss of use of its truck. This is not accurate. The plaintiff did prove such damages. What the defendant now complains of in his brief is the court's failure to deduct from the value of the use of the truck the reasonable value of the services of the driver of the truck. The finding does not state that the services of the driver were included in the allowance made for the use of the truck nor is there anything in the finding which tends to indicate that this is so. The defendant made no motion to correct the finding and insert such a fact. It ought not now to be allowed to insert it in the finding by the transference of this allegation of a fact in its brief to the finding of the court. The finding is explicit that the plaintiff's truck was earning at the time of the accident $33 a day gross, that the daily cost of its operation for gasoline and oil was $4.86, and for depreciation $3 for the 39 working days it was out of commission. The court also deducted $18 for depreciation for the six Sundays the car was out of commission. We see no basis for this last deduction, but that is of no consequence, since the plaintiff has not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschaapij, N. V. v. United Technologies Corp., 627
...item from the cost of repair. Anderson v. Gengras Motors, Inc., 141 Conn. 688, 109 A.2d 502, 504 (1954); Mastrianni v. Apothecaries Hall Co., 109 Conn. 376, 146 A. 819, 820 (1929); Hawkins v. Garford Trucking Co., 96 Conn. 337, 114 A. 94, 95 (1921); Parilli v. Brooklyn City R.R., supra. Suc......
-
Hansen v. Costello
... ... 846, ... and cases cited: Longworth v. McGrath, 108 Conn ... 738, 143 A. 845; Mastrianni v. Apothecaries Hall ... Co., 109 Conn 376, 146 A. 819; Card v. Bissing, ... 114 Conn. 71, 78, ... ...
-
Card v. Bissing
... ... reversed in both cases. Lassen v. Stamford sit Co., ... 102 Conn. 76, 128 A. 117; Hall supra, 112 Conn. 291, ... 152 A. 148, and cases cited. The next question, presented ... only by ... the services of the driver, citing as authority for this ... claim Mastrianni v. Apothecaries Hall Co., 109 Conn ... 376, 146 A. 819. As in that case, so in this, the finding ... ...