Orico v. Williams

• Decision Date: 19 May 1953
• Citation: 97 A.2d 556,139 Conn. 714
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ORICO v. WILLIAMS et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 556

97 A.2d 556

139 Conn. 714

ORICO v. WILLIAMS et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 19, 1953.

Vincent Villano, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).

John E. McNerney, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Francis J. Moran and Albert R. Moquet, New Haven, for appellees (defendants).

Before BROWN, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, QUINLAN, and INGLIS, JJ.

QUINLAN, Associate Justice.

From the plaintiff's claims of proof as corrected, the defendant having offered no evidence, it appears that on the evening of September 2, 1949, the plaintiff was riding as a passenger on the rear seat of an automobile owned and maintained by the named defendant as a family car and driven by his son, the other defendant, within the scope of his authority. While driving westerly on Putnam Avenue near its junction with Carleton Street in Hamden, the defendant driver decided to turn the car around. At that point a driveway led from the northerly side of Putnam Avenue across the curb line and public sidewalk into the adjoining private premises. A tree two feet in diameter stood about one foot north of the curb, just east of the driveway. There was a light almost directly across the street. In attempting to back into the driveway to turn the car around, the defendant driver caused the left end of the rear bumper to come into violent contact with the tree. At the time, the plaintiff, as she sat on the right side of the rear seat, was trying to relax, with her eyes closed and her head resting on the top of the back of the seat. The impact was sufficient to throw her whole body forward against the back of the front seat, causing the injuries complained of. It also did substantial damage to the left end of the rear bumper and the car's trunk, on which there was an imprint of the tree. The night was clear and there was no other traffic on Putnam Avenue at the time. No map or photograph was offered in evidence. The plaintiff relied upon the inferences to be drawn from these facts, in connection with express testimony that the car 'shot back' just prior to striking the tree, to sustain her claim of negligence. There were no eyewitnesses other than the plaintiff and the defendant driver.

The plaintiff has assigned error in the court's refusal to make certain corrections in and additions to the finding. The finding in a case tried to the jury 'is merely a narrative of the facts claimed to have been proved on either side made for the purpose of fairly presenting any claimed errors in the charge or rulings of the court. It will not be corrected merely to secure a meticulous accuracy as to details * * *.' Brown v. Goodwin, 110 Conn. 217, 218, 147 A. 673, 674; Fierberg v. Whitcomb, 119 Conn. 390, 392, 177 A. 135. The finding, with a single correction as to the location of the tree, sufficiently presents the two claimed errors in the charge which we regard as determinative of the appeal. The first relates to the court's charge in regard to inferences.

After instructing the jury that it was their sole province to deal with the evidence, the court charged: 'By the evidence of course I mean not only the testimony of the witnesses but any exhibits that have been offered, and any reasonable inferences which you can draw therefrom.' The court itself, in the absence of the jury, and while discussing the exceptions to the charge, stressed the importance of inferences in the case, but in no way, other than through the above reference to 'reasonable inferences,' did the court define or comment upon them, nor did it illustrate to the jury their place and function in the case. 'Courts must necessarily rely on circumstantial evidence in many cases and may draw reasonable and logical inferences from facts existing prior to or subsequent to an event for the purpose of reaching a conclusion of fact.' Shaughnessy v. Morrison, 116 Conn. 661, 664, 165 A. 553, 554; Weidlich v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 93 Conn. 438, 445, 106 A. 323; Ruerat v. Stevens, 113 Conn. 333, 338, 155 A. 219. The case was one which particularly called for an instruction on circumstantial evidence with relation to the claimed negligence of the defendant driver in backing the car. LeBlanc v. Grillo, 129 Conn. 378, 381, 28 A.2d 127; Esserman v. Madden, 123 Conn. 386, 388, 195 A. 739; Doherty v. Connecticut Co., 133 Conn. 469, 477, 52 A.2d 436.

The plaintiff excepted to the charge on that ground. Among the physical facts which might have been mentioned was the extent of damage to the automobile and to the tree, the size of the tree, the fact as to its location on the right of the...