Palmer v. R. & H. Pant Co.

• Decision Date: 27 June 1933
• Citation: 117 Conn. 124,167 A. 94
• Parties: PALMER v. R. & H. PANT CO. et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

167 A. 94

117 Conn. 124

PALMER v. R. & H. PANT CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 27, 1933

Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Newell Jennings Judge.

Action by Amelia Palmer against R. & H. Pant Company and another to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant Gillette and the heedless and reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights by the defendant R. & H. Pant Company. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

No error on appeal of Gillette. Error on appeal of the R. & H Pant Company, and new trial ordered.

Charles V. James and Arthur M. Brown, both of Norwich, for appellant Gillette.

M Joseph Blumfeld, of Hartford, for appellant R. & H. Pant Co.

John T. Barry, of Norwich, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.

HAINES, Judge.

The complaint charged in the first count, that both the defendants were liable for negligence, and in the second count that the defendant Pant Company was liable for a heedless and reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights. The court ruled that the plaintiff was a gratuitous passenger while in the car of the last-named defendant, and that that defendant could not be held liable under the first count in any event, and as the case went to the jury, Gillette was charged in negligence under the first count only and the Pant Company on the Guest Statute (Gen. St. 1930, § 1628) under the second count only. The car of the last-named defendant was being driven by the president of the company, Weinbaum, and will be hereafter referred to as the Weinbaum car. It was proceeding east on the north Coventry-Bolton state highway in the town of Bolton about 3:30 in the afternoon of June 7, 1932, and when nearing a driveway entering the Collins property, stopped, while Weinbaum met and inquired of the plaintiff whether that was the road to Manchester. Being told that he was going in the wrong direction, he thereupon suggested that upon his turning about, if she would show him the road, he would give her a ride toward her destination, and to this she agreed, and entered the car. He then drove a short distance past the driveway and backed the car into it in order to turn and drive westward. In the meantime the defendant Gillette was approaching from the west at high speed. Weinbaum proceeded out of the driveway at moderate speed and into the highway, turning to the left as he crossed onto the north lane headed west. As he had about completed the turn the Gillette car ran into the left side of his car, and the plaintiff who was sitting at his right, was injured. The jury returned a general verdict of $1,200 against the defendants which the court accepted. Each defendant moved to set aside the verdict as against the law and the evidence, and the court denied both motions. Gillette's appeal assigns error on this ground only, and the Pant Company in addition to the same ground, assigns the denial of its motion to exclude as against it, the evidence produced in behalf of Gillette; error in the charge as to the rule of the road, as to the right of way and as to wanton misconduct.

We have studied the entire evidence with care and it compels the conclusion that the jury was fully warranted in the case of Gillette, in its finding that he was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. He was driving at a speed estimated by certain witnesses to be from 55 to 60 miles an hour; when a long distance away, he saw the Weinbaum car standing in the driveway headed out, and saw it start toward the highway,...