Mitnick v. Whalen Bros., Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 December 1932
• Citation: 163 A. 414,115 Conn. 650
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MITNICK v. WHALEN BROS., Inc., et al.

163 A. 414

115 Conn. 650

MITNICK v. WHALEN BROS., Inc., et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 13, 1932

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Carl Foster, Judge.

Action by Celia Mitnick against Whalen Brothers, Incorporated, and others, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants. Verdict and judgment were for plaintiff, and defendants Whalen and Whalen Brothers, Incorporated, appeal.

No error.

Raymond E. Baldwin and William Reeves, both of Bridgeport for appellants.

Harry Freedman, of Bridgeport, for appellee.

MALTBIE, C.J.

The complaint alleges that two automobiles, one driven by the agent of the defendant Whalen Brothers, Incorporated, and the other by the defendant Yakiwoczuk, collided with each other by reason of the negligence of both drivers while the plaintiff was upon the sidewalk close to them, and that as a result she was badly frightened and immediately fainted later had a miscarriage, and suffered pain and nervous shock. The jury might reasonably have found that the cars collided at a street intersection with a considerable crash; that one of them was overturned and came to rest near the northeast corner of the intersection; that the plaintiff having crossed the street, had just reached that corner; that hearing the crash she looked saw a car turned toward her, and screamed, fainted, and fell; that when she regained consciousness she was helped to the veranda of her mother's house directly across the street, where she sat for a few minutes; that while there she felt and complained of pain in her back and right hip; that she was then put to bed, and her mother on examining her discovered a bloody discharge; that thereafter she was largely confined to her bed, suffered pain, and five days later had a miscarriage; and that this miscarriage resulted from her fright and fall. The defendants claim that proof of these facts was not sufficient to sustain the verdict rendered in her favor because her pain and suffering and the miscarriage resulted solely from her fright at the collision. The case presented is substantially on all fours with that before us in Block v. Paseueci, 111 Conn. 58, 149 A. 210, and is controlled by that decision. See, also, Israel v. Ulrich 114 Conn. 599, 159 A. 634.

That the results for which the plaintiff sought recovery were not such as would have been reasonably anticipated by the drivers of the cars is no basis for denying the liability of the defendants. Reynolds v. Land Mortgage & Title Co., 114 Conn. 447, 455, 159 A. 282; nor is it so extraordinary that a pregnant woman upon a sidewalk close to the spot where two automobiles collided should...