Nelson v. August

• Decision Date: 10 June 1958
• Citation: Nelson v. August, 145 Conn. 347, 142 A.2d 726 (Conn. 1958)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Mary D. NELSON v. Robert B. AUGUST, Administrator (Estate of Charlotte Trombley), et al. In re TROMBLEY'S ESTATE. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 726

142 A.2d 726

145 Conn. 347

Mary D. NELSON v.Robert B. AUGUST, Administrator (Estate of Charlotte Trombley), et al.In re TROMBLEY'S ESTATE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 10, 1958.

William E. C. Bulkeley, Hartford, with whom was Charles W. Page, Hartford, for appellant(defendant Nelson).

Walter J. Sullivan, Hartford, for appellant(defendant Shaner).

Joseph P. Kenny, Hartford, for appellee(plaintiff).

Before DALY, C. J., and BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ.

BALDWIN, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff, Mary D. Nelson, brought an action to recover damages for injuries which she claimed to have suffered while riding in an automobile owned by the defendantThe Snow Buick Company and driven by her husband, the defendantAnton M. Nelson.It collided with an automobile owned by the defendant administrator's decedent and driven by the defendantMary B. Shaner.Anton Nelson brought an action against Mrs. Shaner, and the two cases were tried together to a jury.The collision occurred at night on a curve in the highway, which ran in a generally east and west direction, when the car driven by Nelson was proceeding west and the one driven by Mrs. Shaner was proceeding east.The plaintiff withdrew her action as against the defendant administrator and The Snow Buick Company.The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against Anton Nelson and Mrs. Shaner in the present action, and in favor of Mrs. Shaner in the action brought against her by Anton Nelson.Motions to set aside these verdicts were denied.The defendants in the present action have appealed, Mrs. Shaner pressing her appeal only as to the amount of the verdict.

Each defendant operator claims that it was the other who crossed the middle of the highway and caused the collision.Nelson asserts that the debris from the impact, as well as the major portion of both cars when they finally came to rest following the collision, was on his side of the highway.From this he argues that the indisputable physical facts are at variance with the testimony of Mrs. Shaner and support his claim that he was on his own side of the road and consequently was not negligent.Evidence of physical facts controls the result in the trial of an action for negligence only when those facts are indisputable and demonstrate so conclusively what occurred that a reasoning mind could not accept any other hypothesis.Hagstrom v. Sargent, 137 Conn. 556, 559, 79 A.2d 189;Wadlund v. City of Hartford, 139 Conn. 169, 172, 91 A.2d 10.In the instant case, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the hypothesis claimed by Nelson is the only one consistent with...