Nichols v. Watson
| Decision Date | 03 April 1935 |
| Citation | 119 Conn. 637,178 A. 427 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | NICHOLS v. WATSON et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Windham County; Alfred C. Baldwin Judge.
Action by Donald Nichols against Carl Watson, William L. Fitzgerald and others, to recover damages for injuries alleged to be due to defendants' negligence. From a judgment for plaintiff after trial to the court, defendant Fitzgerald appeals.
No error.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS, JJ.
William S. Hyde, of South Manchester, for appellant Fitzgerald.
David Haymond and Isadore Waxman, both of Hartford (Joseph M Freedman and Harry B. Rosenblum, both of Hartford, on the brief), for appellee.
The plaintiff in this case was a passenger for hire in a taxicab owned by the defendant, Harold Watson, and operated by the defendant Carl Watson, his agent. The finding of facts is not attacked upon this appeal. On November 24, 1933, at about 2 o'clock in the morning, the taxicab in which the plaintiff was riding as a passenger collided with the rear end of a truck owned by the defendant William L. Fitzgerald and operated by his agent Joseph Doherty. The truck was standing on the Hartford-Willimantic Highway in the town of Bolton headed in an easterly direction. At that point the highway is constructed of concrete with two lanes each ten feet wide, and the truck was parked upon the southerly lane with its lights turned out. Immediately to the right there was ample space to have parked off the traveled part of the highway. It was equipped at its rear end with two four-button and one circular reflectors. These were covered with dust and dirt to a degree which affected their visibility. The truck had left the defendant's garage at Manchester and the dust and dirt upon the reflectors had not accumulated during the trip from that point to the scene of the accident. The defendant Carl Watson approached the place of the collision in an easterly direction at a speed of forty-five miles an hour with his driving lights tilted downward so that they did not illuminate the road ahead for a distance of over 75 feet.
The trial court found that the driver of the taxi was negligent in driving at that rate of speed with his lights titled downward and in not keeping a proper lookout for obstacles in the road ahead; and that the driver of the truck was negligent in stopping it upon the traveled part of the highway and switching off his head and tail-lights, in not having the reflectors upon the rear end of the truck free from dust and dirt so that they would have been visible, and in not having stopped his vehicle on the space to this right off the traveled part of the highway; and concluded that the negligence of each of these operators was a substantial factor in producing the injuries which the plaintiff received. The errors assigned upon this appeal are in refusing to find that the negligence of the defendant Watson was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merback v. Blanchard, 2151
...offered by defendant and in directing a verdict for defendant. The violation of traffic regulations is negligence per se. Nichols v. Watson, 178 A. 427; Contracting v. Berry (Ala.) 134 So. 868; Page v. Neiland, 178 N.E. 170; Marinkovich v. Tierney, 17 P.2d 93; Cheskus v. Christiano, 182 A. ......
-
Busko v. DeFilippo
...Corporation, 153 Conn. 62, 64, 212 A.2d 588; Krupa v. Farmington River Power Co., 147 Conn. 153, 159, 157 A.2d 914; Nichols v. Watson, 119 Conn. 637, 640, 178 A. 427. This requirement applies to negligence which results from the violation of a common-law rule as well as a statute. Moore v. ......
- Belchak v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co.
-
Jackson v. W. A. Norris, Inc.
...flares. "On the whole it seems clear to us that the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence was for the jury." In Nichols vs. Watson, 119 Conn. 637, 178 A. 427, it held that a truck left standing on the highway at night without lights was being operated in violation of statute and t......