New Haven Rendering Co. v. Connecticut Co.

Decision Date26 March 1915
Citation89 Conn. 252,93 A. 528
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesNEW HAVEN RENDERING CO. v. CONNECTICUT CO.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; Howard B. Scott, Judge.

Action by the New Haven Rendering Company against the Connecticut Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. No error.

Carl Foster, of Bridgeport, for appellant. Joseph F. Berry, of New Haven, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. The complaint in this action charges the defendant with negligence: First, in running a freight trolley car attached to a passenger trolley car not equipped with suitable brakes; second, in running these cars at an excessive and reckless rate of speed; and, third, because of the failure of the defendants' agents to exercise proper care in preventing these cars from colliding with a wagon driven by a servant of the plaintiff.

The trial court found the defendant was guilty of negligence in running its cars at an excessive rate of speed; that the plaintiff's servant was negligent in attempting to cross the tracks of the defendant company in front of the approaching cars; and that his contributory negligence was an efficient and proximate cause of the accident. No exception to any finding of fact or to any refusal to find a fact has been made. The plaintiff claims that the ultimate conclusion of the court of common pleas as to the question of contributory negligence is not supported by the subordinate facts set forth in the finding. To sustain this contention of the plaintiff it must appear that the trial court reached its conclusion by adopting an erroneous rule of law; that some fact found was legally inconsistent with its conclusion; that the judgment rendered was impossible without violating the plain rules of reason; or that there was an error of fact which was relied on by the court as material and controlling, and which lay at the very foundation of the judgment. Metcalf v. Central Vermont Ry. Co., 78 Conn. 614, 63 Atl. 633. An examination of the subordinate facts found fails to disclose that they are legally or logically inconsistent with the ultimate conclusion of the trial court upon this branch of the case. It follows, therefore, that the decision of the lower court as to contributory negligence is final.

Upon the trial the plaintiff introduced as a witness an experienced driver of wagons, who testified that he witnessed the collision in question, and that he saw the approaching car at the time when the plaintiff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Tinney v. Crosby
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1941
    ...63 N.E. 334; Twomey v. Swift, 163 Mass. 273, 275, 39 N.E. 1918; White v. Ballou, 8 Allen, Mass, 408, 409; New Haven Rendering Co. v. Connecticut Co., 89 Conn. 252, 93 A. 528, 531; Kelly v. City of Waterbury, 96 Conn. 494, 114 A. 530, 531; Baltimore, C. & A. R. Co. v. Moon, 118 Md. 380, 84 A......
  • Tinney v. Crosby
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1941
    ... ... 273, 275, 39 N.E. 1018; ... White v. Ballou , 90 Mass. 408, 409; New ... Haven Rendering Co. v. Connecticut Co. , 89 ... Conn. 252, 93 A. 528, 531; Kelly v. City of ... ...
  • Hayward v. Plant
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1923
    ... ... 341 98 Conn. 374 HAYWARD et al. v. PLANT et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. January 10, 1923 ... [119 A. 342] ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, New London ... 657; Lawler v. Hartford ... Street Ry. Co., 72 Conn. 80, 81, 43 A. 545; New ... Haven Rendering Co. v. Connecticut Co., 89 Conn. 252, ... 253, 93 A. 528 ... The ... ...
  • Jackson v. Brown
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1927
    ...137 A. 725 106 Conn. 143 JACKSON ET AL. v. BROWN. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.June 6, 1927 ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, Windham County; Christopher L. Avery, ... the plain rules of reason. New Haven Rendering Co. v ... Connecticut Co., 89 Conn. 252, 253, 93 A. 528. To test ... this claimed ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT