Neuman v. Apter

• Decision Date: 01 February 1921
• Citation: 112 A. 350,95 Conn. 695
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: NEUMAN v. APTER (two cases)

112 A. 350

95 Conn. 695

NEUMAN v. APTER (two cases)

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 1, 1921

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Lucien F. Burpee Judge.

Action by Otto A. P. Neuman to recover damages for injuries to his automobile and for sums expended in the care of his wife Anna Neuman, injured in a collision with the automobile of the defendant, Benjamin Apter, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant's driver, and action by Anna Neuman to recover damages for injuries to her person in such collision, with a counterclaim by the defendant Benjamin Apter, against the plaintiff, Otto A. P. Neuman, to recover damages for injuries to his automobile in such collision which he alleges was caused by the negligence of Otto A. P. Neuman, and tried together to the jury. Verdict for the plaintiff, Otto A. P. Neuman, to recover $812.54 and for the plaintiff, Anna Neuman, to recover $2,000. Appeal by the defendant. No error.

Lawrence A. Howard and Nathan O. Freedman, both of Hartford, for appellant.

James B. Henry, of Hartford, for appellee.

CURTIS, J.

The defendant's first complaint is of the refusal of the trial court to grant his motion in each case to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. Under the conflicting evidence the jury could reasonably render the verdict given in each case.

The defendant claims further that the court erred as to each case in its charge relating to the duty of the plaintiff to observe the following statutory rule of conduct (chapter 202, Public Acts of 1919), in view of the facts which the plaintiffs claimed to have proved:

" Every driver and operator of a vehicle approaching the intersection of a street or public highway shall grant the right of way at such intersection to any vehicle approaching from his right, provided such vehicles are arriving at such intersection at approximately the same instant." Section 2.

The plaintiffs claimed to have proved these facts: Otto A. P. Neuman was driving his automobile northerly on Franklin avenue in Hartford on September 15, 1919, at about 9:30 p.m. He sat on the left side of the front seat, his wife, Anna Neuman on the right side of the same seat, and their child was between them. A light rain was falling, and the road was wet and slippery and it was dark. The plaintiff proposed turning westerly into Preston street, which ran easterly and westerly, intersecting Franklin street at right angles. As he was about to turn into Preston street he slowed his car to about 6 miles per hour and turned to the left, keeping to the right of the intersection of the centers of the two streets.

Franklin avenue is about 50 feet wide, and near its center are the tracks of a double-track street railway, leaving a clear space of 17 1/2 feet between the outer rail and the street curb on either side. As Neuman was turning to his left to enter Preston street, he and his wife saw the lights of the defendant's automobile when about 300 or 350 feet away approaching from the north on the westerly side of Franklin avenue, but he could not see that it was coming fast, and could not discover that it was going at a high speed until it was only a few feet away and just before the collision.

The defendant's automobile was then running at a speed of about 40 miles an hour, and that speed was maintained to the time of the collision.

When the rear wheels of the plaintiff's automobile were midway between the rails of the westerly trolley tracks the plaintiff saw the defendant's automobile approaching at high speed and only a few feet away. The defendant's automobile did not sound a horn at any time. The defendant's automobile did not turn to the right or left to avoid striking the plaintiff's automobile, as it might have done, but struck the plaintiff's automobile a square blow in the middle, severely injuring the plaintiff's wife and his automobile.

The plaintiff, Otto A. P. Neuman, was operating his car in a careful and reasonable manner and in accordance with the rules of the road when he turned from Franklin avenue to enter Preston street.

In the light of these claimed facts the court charged the jury as follows as to the above-quoted statutory rule of conduct:

" There is not in this complaint an allegation upon which can fairly be placed one feature in this case, which I think is very important, and which counsel on both sides have seemed to regard as an element to be considered in reaching the conclusion concerning the conduct of these several parties, and, although, strictly, according to the rules which I have described to you, that might be called outside of your consideration, I think it is fair, in view of the way the case has been presented, to call your attention to another law which we have, a statute in this state, and that provides, in effect, that when any person approaches an intersecting highway he must

...