Menzie v. Kalmonowitz

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtMALTBIE, J.
Citation107 Conn. 197,139 A. 698
PartiesMENZIE v. KALMONOWITZ.
Decision Date06 January 1928

139 A. 698

107 Conn. 197

MENZIE
v.
KALMONOWITZ.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

January 6, 1928


Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Allyn L. Brown, Judge.

Action by Louise Menzie, P. P. A., against Samuel Kalmonowitz, to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, brought to the superior court in New London county and tried to the jury before Brown, J.; verdict for the plaintiff for $10,000, of which she remitted the sum of $1,500 upon order of the trial court, and, from the judgment for the balance, the defendant appealed. No error. [139 A. 699]

[107 Conn. 198] Charles Hadlai Hull, of New London, for appellant.

S. Victor Prince, of New London, for appellee.

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

MALTBIE, J.

From the evidence offered upon the trial, the jury might have reached the following conclusions:

The plaintiff, a girl between 15 and 16 years of age, was struck by an automobile truck operated by the defendant just after she had alighted from a trolley car in which she had been a passenger. As the car approached the street corner where she desired to get off, she signaled the operator to stop by pressing a button, arose from her seat, and proceeded to the door, which was at the front end of the car. The car was of the so-called " safety" type; the mechanism being so arranged that the door could not open until the car had come to a stop. The plaintiff stepped to the street and proceeded at a hurried walk or trot toward the curb, taking a diagonal course and facing somewhat in the direction in which the car had been going. When she had taken two or three steps and was some five or six feet away from the car, she was struck by the truck driven by the defendant.

The truck had been following the car for a distance of more than a block. No witness except the defendant was so situated as to be able to definitely place its position when the car came to a stop; but one of the plaintiff's witnesses placed it as opposite the rear end of the trolley car when the plaintiff was getting off the step, and another, who sat in the third seat from the rear, testified that it went by him just as she was getting off; and, from this testimony and the other facts in evidence, it would be a reasonable inference that the truck was behind the car when it stopped, certainly that it was behind it when it began to slow down for the stop. The point where the trolley car [107 Conn. 199] stopped was a regular stopping place, and this the defendant well knew. He did not blow his horn to signal his approach. He drove by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 practice notes
  • Wolf v. Holton, No. 21219.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 3, 1949
    ...It is conduct which indicates an indifference to the consequences of action and constitutes wanton misconduct. Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 199, 139 A. 698; Bordonaro v. Senk, supra. Conduct arising from momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or from an error of judgment, does no......
  • Dubay v. Irish, No. 13239
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 17, 1988
    ...Mooney v. Wabrek, 129 Conn. 302, 308, 27 A.2d 631 (1942). "Wanton misconduct Page 719 is reckless misconduct. Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 199, 139 A. 698 (1928). 'It is such conduct as indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of ......
  • Hoelter v. Mohawk Service, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • April 6, 1976
    ...the contributory negligence doctrine was rejected: (1) where the defendant's negligence was wilful or reckless, Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 139 A. 698; (2) where the defendant was engaged in an ultrahazardous activity, Starkel v. Edward Balf Co., 142 Conn. 336, 114 A.2d 199; (3) w......
  • State v. Bunkley
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 24, 1987
    ...or gross negligence of one party is not a defense to a claim of recklessness against another party. See, e.g., Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 200, 139 A. 698 (1928). The trial court's ruling was well within its discretionary The court also did not commit error by taking judicial noti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
70 cases
  • Wolf v. Holton, No. 21219.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 3, 1949
    ...It is conduct which indicates an indifference to the consequences of action and constitutes wanton misconduct. Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 199, 139 A. 698; Bordonaro v. Senk, supra. Conduct arising from momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or from an error of judgment, does no......
  • Dubay v. Irish, No. 13239
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 17, 1988
    ...Mooney v. Wabrek, 129 Conn. 302, 308, 27 A.2d 631 (1942). "Wanton misconduct Page 719 is reckless misconduct. Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 199, 139 A. 698 (1928). 'It is such conduct as indicates a reckless disregard of the just rights or safety of others or of the consequences of ......
  • Hoelter v. Mohawk Service, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • April 6, 1976
    ...the contributory negligence doctrine was rejected: (1) where the defendant's negligence was wilful or reckless, Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 139 A. 698; (2) where the defendant was engaged in an ultrahazardous activity, Starkel v. Edward Balf Co., 142 Conn. 336, 114 A.2d 199; (3) w......
  • State v. Bunkley
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 24, 1987
    ...or gross negligence of one party is not a defense to a claim of recklessness against another party. See, e.g., Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 200, 139 A. 698 (1928). The trial court's ruling was well within its discretionary The court also did not commit error by taking judicial noti......
  • 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