Moulin v. Bergeron

• Decision Date: 22 March 1949
• Citation: 65 A.2d 478,135 Conn. 443
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: MOULIN v. BERGERON et al.

135 Conn. 443

65 A.2d 478

MOULIN

v.BERGERON et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 22, 1949.

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

Action by Ruth Moulin against Celia Bergeron and another, for injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence of the defendants.Judgment for plaintiff against named defendant, and the named defendant alone appeals.

No error.

Thomas J. Brimingham, and James F. Kennedy, both of Hartford, for appellants.

Samuel Steinberg, of Hartford, for appellee.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and ALCORN, JJ.(Judge HOWARD W. ALCORN of the Superior Court sat for Judge DICKENSON).

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff was a passenger on a two-wheel motor scooter driven by Celia Bergeron.The scooter was in collision with an automobile driven by Columbus C. Smith at the corner of Sigourney Street and Farmington Avenue in Hartford.The plaintiff brought suit against Mrs. Bergeron and Smith and judgment was for her against the former and in favor of Smith.Mrs. Bergeron has appealed on the ground that she was free from negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident.

The testimony was conflicting but the finding cannot be corrected in any way which will advantage the appellant.The Smith car and the scooter were both proceeding south on Sigourney Street near the west curb.The scooter was a little behind and somewhat nearer the west curb than the automobile.As the vehicles approached Farmington Avenue the traffic light turned green and Smith signaled his intention to make a right turn into Farmington Avenue and started his turn.He did not see the scooter and had no reason to believe that it would attempt to pass on his right.The scooter ran into the right rear fender of the automobile and the plaintiff was thrown to the ground and injured.

The trial court concluded that no negligence of Smith in the operation of his automobile contributed to the collision and that it was solely due to the conduct of the defendant Bergeron.

The latter advances two arguments in her brief which she claims show that she was free from negligence contributing to the collision, as a matter of law.She first claims that she was entitled to the right of way under General Statutes, Sup.1947, § 292i, Rev.1949, § 2489.No case has been cited or found which holds that this statute, regulating the right of way at an intersection, applies when the cars are approaching the intersection on the...