Mott v. Hillman

• Decision Date: 16 April 1947
• Citation: Mott v. Hillman, 133 Conn. 552, 52 A.2d 861 (Conn. 1947)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MOTT v. HILLMAN et al.

133 Conn. 552

52 A.2d 861

MOTT

v.HILLMAN et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 16, 1947.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Fairfield County; King, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth Mott, administratrix of the estate of George A. Mott, against Barney Hillman and another for death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been caused by negligence of the defendants.From a judgment for defendants, based on a directed verdict, the plaintiff appeals.

No error.

John Keogh, Jr., John Keogh and George F. McKendry, all of Norwalk, for appellant.

John E. McNerney and Francis J. Moran, both of New Haven, for appellees.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.

DICKENSON, Judge.

The sole question in this appeal is whether the trial court was justified in directing a verdict for the defendants because of lack of evidence of negligence on their part.

The facts, which are not disputed, are as follows: A truck being operated by the plaintiff's decedent in an easterly direction on a four-lane highway in the daytime on a dry pavement collided with the defendants' truck which was being driven in the opposite direction.No eyewitnesses to the collision testified, and the plaintiff relied upon the physical situation presented after the collision to sustain her cause of action.The decedent's truck came to rest on the south side of the highway at right angles to it, its rear end off the traveled road, its front end on the south lane and its left front crushed in.The decedent's body lay across the mid-line of the highway.His death from the collision had been instantaneous.No evidence was offered as to the position of the other truck.There were no skid marks on the road.A photograph of the decedent's truck in evidence shows some debris on the south side of the road near it.

The plaintiff's claim is that, as her decedent's truck was on its own side of the road when it came to rest after the collision and as there were no skid marks, the jury reasonably could have found that the truck was to its right of the center line of the highway at the time of impact and that the defendants' truck must, therefore, have been to its left of the center line in violation of the passing statute.General Statutes, Cum.Sup. 1939, § 544e.The plaintiff further claims that the factual situation is the same as that in LeBlanc v. Grillo, 129 Conn. 378, 28 A.2d 127, and that the decision in that case supports her claim of error in this.We said in that case(129 Conn. at page 383, 28 A.2d 127) that the fact that the west panel was devoid of any marks whatsoever, the...