Palmieri v. Macero
| Decision Date | 03 November 1959 |
| Citation | 146 Conn. 705,155 A.2d 750 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | John PALMIERI v. Grace MACERO, Administratrix (ESTATE of Anthony GIANNETTI). Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Kenneth J. Zarrilli, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, were Edward, J. Lang, Burton J. Jacobson and Alfred A. D'Amore, Bridgeport, for appellant (plaintiff).
Frederick L. Comley, Bridgeport, for appellee (defendant).
Before KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ, ALCORN 1 and PHILLIPS, 1 JJ.
The plaintiff was was injured early in the morning of July 12, 1956, when his Cadillac automobile, operated at the time by his nephew, Anthony Giannetti, went over an embankment on the Pennsylvania turnpike. The nephew did not survive. The plaintiff was unable to testify as to the cause of the accident, since he had been asleep in the car and was only awakened when it struck a guardrail before going over the embankment. There were no witnesses to the accident.
A Pennsylvania state policeman investigated the accident within an hour and traced the path of the car backwards, by the marks it had made, from the spot where it had overturned in a swamp at the foot of the embankment. From this evidence the jury could find that the car, westbound, ran for about thirty feet along the north shoulder of the road, crossed the two west-bound lanes into the grassy center strip, where it left marks for eighty-seven feet, and then went diagonally across the west-bound lanes for a distance of 294 feet, on through two sections of the guardrail on the northerly shoulder, and down the embankment for a distance of 100 feet. The plaintiff contended that the jury could reasonably conclude that the nephew was negligently operating the car in one or more of the ways alleged in the complaint. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff which the trial court set aside, and judgment was rendered for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict. Practice Book, § 234. The plaintiff has appealed.
As the action of the court in granting the motion to set aside the verdict and rendering judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be tested by the evidence, a finding should not have been requested or made. Tamarit v. Ottolini, 145 Conn. 586, 591, 145 A.2d 587; Practice Book, § 385. The assignment of error should have been filed with the appeal. Practice Book, § 388. The sole question is whether the court erred in granting the motion. To determine this question, we must resort to the evidence presented and decide whether there was any evidence to sustain the verdict or whether the verdict was the result of speculation, conjecture and guesswork without benefit of credible evidence.
The trial court, in its memorandum of decision upon the motion, reviewed the evidence with scrupulous care and pointed out that while the marks upon and about the highway indicated that the car was then traveling at a fast rate of speed and was out of control, there was no basis for finding what caused the vehicle to make these marks or to follow the course which it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paige v. Saint Andrew's Roman Catholic Church Corp., 15866
...be established without conjecture, the evidence presented cannot withstand a motion for a directed verdict"); Palmieri v. Macero, 146 Conn. 705, 708, 155 A.2d 750 (1959) ("[i]nferences ... must be reasonable and logical, and the [results] based upon them must not be the result of speculatio......
-
State v. Osman
...665, 671, 485 A.2d 913 (1984). "Inferences to be drawn from the facts proved must be reasonable and logical...." Palmieri v. Macero, 146 Conn. 705, 708, 155 A.2d 750 (1959); State v. Kelsey, 160 Conn. 551, 553-54, 274 A.2d 151 (1970). "Moreover, inferences which do not have a basis in facts......
-
Burton v. City of Stamford
...86 A. 10. Possible negligence stemming from operation of a vehicle at an excessive rate of speed was at issue in Palmieri v. Macero, 146 Conn. 705, 155 A.2d 750 (1959). In that case, the plaintiff was injured when a vehicle driven by his nephew "went over an embankment on the Pennsylvania t......
-
Dongguk Univ. v. Yale Univ.
...[the defendant's] negligence too conjectural and uncertain to warrant a verdict against the defendant.”) (quoting Palmieri v. Macero, 146 Conn. 705, 155 A.2d 750, 752 (1959)). Because Dongguk failed to raise any material question of fact that the Schirmeister Fax was the proximate cause of ......
-
Tort Developments in 2008
...plaintiff passenger was unable to recall anything about accident due to amnesia, and no eyewitnesses to accident); Palmieri v. Macero, 146 Conn. 705, 706-708, 155 A.2d 750 (1959) (no proof of negligence when driver of motor vehicle that went over embankment did not survive accident, plainti......