Mims v. Kingsley
| Decision Date | 14 January 1958 |
| Citation | 145 Conn. 7,138 A.2d 520 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | George MIMS v. Frank J. KINGSLEY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Francis B. Tierney and Michael J. Quinn, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was John J. Philbin, Boston, Mass., for appellant (plaintiff).
Martin E. Gormley, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Charles G. Albom and Kevin T. Gormley, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).
Before WYNNE, C. J., and BALDWIN, DALY, KING and MURPHY, JJ., concurring.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused to him by the defendant's negligence. By his answer the defendant denied the allegation that he was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The defendant alleged, also, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The case was tried to the jury, who returned a verdict for the defendant. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to set it aside. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment. 1
In his first assignment of error the plaintiff claims that the court erred in denying his motion to set the verdict aside, contending that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. The jury could reasonably have found the following facts: Dixwell Avenue in New Haven runs north and south. Henry Street runs east and west and intersects Dixwell Avenue. There is an overhead traffic signal at the center of the intersection. The phases of the colored lights of the signal are green, amber and red and then from red to green. On October 6, 1953, in the evening, it was raining heavily. The defendant was operating his automobile in a westerly direction on Henry Street at a speed of approximately 20 miles per hour. The plaintiff was operating his automobile in a southerly direction on Dixwell Avenue. As the defendant approached Dixwell Avenue the signal light was green for westbound traffic. When his automobile arrived at the easterly crosswalk, the light turned to amber. At that time the plaintiff drove his automobile into the intersection from the north, although the signal light was red for southbound traffic. The defendant applied the brakes of his car. It skidded and its right headlight hit the left front fender of the plaintiff's automobile.
A verdict must prevail unless it is unsupported by the evidence or is so palpably against the evidence as to indicate prejudice, partiality, corruption, confusion or lack of understanding by the jury. The conclusion of the jury on issues of fact, if it is one which honest men acting fairly and intelligently could reasonably arrive at, must stand. The credibility of each witness and the weight to be accorded his testimony are for the jury. The evidence must be given the most favorable construction in support of the verdict of which it is reasonably capable. Since, upon the evidence, it cannot be said that as a matter of law the defendant was negligent or the plaintiff free from contributory negligence, the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict was correct. Gennallo v. Mazzacane, 144 Conn. 686, 688, 137 A.2d 534.
Dr. Steven P. Magyar, an expert medical witness for the plaintiff, testified that he had examined the plaintiff on December 10, 1953. On cross-examination, he testified that, on August 22, 1955, he referred the plaintiff to Dr. Lycurgus Davey, a neurologist, for examination, treatment and report. Dr. Magyar was asked whether his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canterbury Realty Co. v. Ives
...does not pursue, in his brief, any claim concerning corrections in the report, and we treat that subject as abandoned. Mims v. Kingsley, 145 Conn. 7, 10, 138 A.2d 520. The points of attack on the judgment are that the court erred in accepting the referee's report because the appraisal on wh......
-
Marchand v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
...to indicate prejudice on the part of the jury, partiality, corruption, confusion or lack of understanding of the issues. Mims v. Kingsley, 145 Conn. 7, 9, 138 A.2d 520. Since, upon the evidence, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the defendant was negligent or the decedent free from ......
-
Northeastern Gas Transmission Co. v. Ehrhorn
...committee. Since in their brief they have pursued only the first of these claims, we consider the others as abandoned. Mims v. Kingsley, 145 Conn. 7, 10, 138 A.2d 520. The sole question for our determination is whether the court erred in rejecting the report of the first committee on the gr......
-
Domenick v. Wilbert Burial Vault Co.
...verdict was a general one for the defendants, and we must presume that the jury did not reach the question of damages. Mims v. Kingsley, 145 Conn. 7, 10, 138 A.2d 520; Steinmetz v. Steinmetz, 127 Conn. 700, 705, 20 A.2d There is no error. In this opinion the other Judges concurred. ...