McKone v. Schott

• Decision Date: 14 April 1909
• Citation: 82 Conn. 70,72 A. 570
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: McKONE v. SCHOTT.

72 A. 570

82 Conn. 70

McKONE

v. SCHOTT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 14, 1909.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; John Coats, Judge.

Action by Robert A. McKone against James S. Schott. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and, from an order setting it aside, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

J. J. McKone, for appellant. Buck & Eggleston, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. The plaintiff's horse was injured in a collision with the defendant's automobile at the intersection of Capitol avenue with Washington street in September, 1906. It was alleged and claimed that the defendant should have passed to the right of the intersection of the center line of these two streets, and that by reason of failing to do so when the plaintiff was in the exercise of all due care, the defendant drove his automobile against the horse of the plaintiff, causing the injuries complained of. The defendant denied the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint. Upon the trial to the jury the plaintiff obtained a verdict which the trial court upon motion of the defendant set aside as against the evidence. This action of the court presents the only reason of appeal.

The statute regulating the proceedings in the case of new trials provides that when a verdict is set aside by a trial judge, and an appeal is taken, the judge shall report all the evidence to the Supreme Court of Errors, and, if this court shall "be of the opinion that such decision setting aside the verdict was erroneous," it shall reverse the decision. The functions of trial and appellate courts with respect to setting aside the verdicts as contrary to the evidence are unlike. In such an appeal this court is dealing, not directly with the verdict of the jury, but with the action of the judge. The question, strictly, is not, was the verdict against the evidence? hut, did the judge err? It is possibly true that in determining the latter question we may be required to pass upon the former one. This court, on objections to verdicts as against evidence, interferes only when the trial court misapplies or mistakes some principle of law, or manifestly abuses a discretion. Loomis v. Perkins, 70 Conn. 446, 447, 39 Atl. 797. The trial judge has the same opportunity as the jury to observe what passed at the trial and to form a just estimate of the credence to be placed on the testimony of the various witnesses, has a better understanding of the law, and is not so liable to be laboring under local prejudice...