Pattenden v. Connecticut Co.

• Citation: 119 A. 348,98 Conn. 370
• Parties: PATTENDEN v. CONNECTICUT CO.
• Decision Date: 10 January 1923
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

119 A. 348

98 Conn. 370

PATTENDEN v. CONNECTICUT CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

January 10, 1923

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; James H. Webb, Judge.

Action by Catharine Pattenden against the Connecticut Company to recover damages for the alleged negligence of defendant. Judgment for defendant, and appeal by plaintiff. No error.

Jacob Schwolsky and Franz J. Carlson, both of Hartford, for appellant.

Joseph F. Berry, of Hartford, and Austin D. Barney, of Farmington for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff waited to cross Farmington avenue at its intersection with Flower street in Hartford, until an east-bound trolley car and several automobiles following it had passed. She then looked each way, and saw no cars or vehicles proceeding in either direction. In fact a wrecker car was proceeding at this time westerly from a point east of this crossing at 25 to 30 miles an hour, but the plaintiff's view as well as the motorman of the wrecker was somewhat obstructed by the east-bound trolley and the automobiles following it.

The motorman gave warning of the approach of the wrecker. Both the noise from the approaching wrecker and the warning given were sufficient to put the plaintiff on notice of the danger of crossing in front of the wrecker had she been exercising due care. The plaintiff walked from the curb from 5 to 8 feet, waited in the street for a boy on a bicycle to pass her and then without looking to the east she hurried on and stepped directly in front of this trolley car when it was from 10 to 15 feet distant, and suffered the injuries for which she seeks to recover damages. The plaintiff could have seen the wrecker when it was 75 feet distant from the crossing and then have avoided being hit by it.

The court concluded that the plaintiff's contributory negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. This conclusion was drawn from many subordinate facts. It was not drawn in violation of some rule or principle of the law, nor is it in conflict with the rules of logic and reason, nor is it contrary to or inconsistent with the subordinate facts hence it cannot be held to be erroneous in law. Hayward et al. v. Plant et al., 98 Conn. 374, 119 A. 341. So long as these subordinate facts stand no conclusion other than that of the trial court could reasonably have been reached. The facts found do not permit the application of the " last clear chance" doctrine.

There...