Peck v. Fanion

• Decision Date: 15 July 1938
• Citation: 124 Conn. 549,1 A.2d 143
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: PECK v. FANION et al.

1 A.2d 143

124 Conn. 549

PECK v. FANION et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 15, 1938

Action by Alice Peck against Edward Fanion and another for personal injuries sustained while riding in a taxicab when a collision occurred, allegedly caused by the negligence of the defendants. Verdict and judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Error and new trial ordered.

John A. Danaher, of Hartford, and Andrew S. Aharonian, of New Britain, for appellant.

Robert L. Halloran and William J. Willetts, both of Hartford, for appellees.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS JJ.

AVERY Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action against the owner and the driver of a taxicab, claiming that while riding as a passenger for hire therein a collision occurred at the intersection of Daly Avenue and Oak Street in New Britain between the conveyance in which she was riding and a motor vehicle, and that she was injured. The case was tried to the jury and a verdict returned in favor of the defendants. From the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff has appealed. The only assignments of error on this appeal relate to the charge of the court as to the degree of care required of the defendant driver and in relation to concurrent negligence. The plaintiff claimed to have proved these facts: She was a saleswoman residing in New Britain. On January 24th, 1937, at about 12:30 a. m. she caused a telephone message to be sent to the named defendant for a taxicab to call for her at Friar's Grille in New Britain. Shortly thereafter a taxicab owned by Edward Fanion and operated by his servant and agent, the defendant Ladislaw Charamut, who was duly authorized to transport the plaintiff, called at the Grille and accepted the plaintiff and Emma O'Day as passengers. After leaving the other passenger at her home the taxicab proceeded north on Main Street to transport the plaintiff to her home on Allen Street. As it approached the intersection of Oak Street and Daly Avenue it was traveling at the rate of fifty miles per hour and increasing speed. The driver did not sound his horn as he approached the intersection or attempt to reduce his speed and was not keeping a proper lookout for other automobiles. As a result of his careless operation another automobile driven by a man named Stanko was struck and the taxi in which the plaintiff was riding was over-turned three times and the plaintiff injured.

The defendants claimed to have proved: That the named defendant was operating a taxi business in New Britain with offices on Washington Street under the name of the Auburn Taxicab Company. About 12:30 a. m. a telephone call was received by the starter of the taxicab company to send a cab to Friar's Grille on Main Street. A cab was sent to that place and the driver, Charamut, inquired at the door if anyone desired a taxicab and thereafter the plaintiff and Mrs. O'Day proceeded to get into the cab. After leaving Mrs. O'Day at her home the driver proceeded to the place of the collision when the cab was run into by an automobile negligently driven by Stanko.

The plaintiff claims that the trial court failed to instruct the jury as to the degree of care required by law of the defendants in the operation of their taxicab, toward the plaintiff as a passenger. The trial court instructed the jury that, ‘ One who is transporting a passenger for hire is required to exercise a high degree of care and skill in the operation of his vehicle, that high degree of care that reasonably might be expected of a reasonably prudent person, having contracted to transport one, in view of the means of conveyance employed and the dangers naturally to be anticipated.’ The charge of the court upon this subject was not adapted to define the duty of a common carrier of passengers. ‘ The duty of a common carrier of passengers * * * is only satisfied if it exercises the highest degree of care and skill which reasonably may be expected of intelligent and prudent persons engaged in such a business, in view of the instrumentalities employed and the dangers naturally to be apprehended.’ Roden v. Connecticut Co., 113 Conn. 408, 410, 155 A. 721, 722; Anthony v. Connecticut Co., 88 Conn. 700, 703, 92 A. 672; Di Rossi v. Connecticut Co., 122 Conn. 372, 374, 188 A. 926.

In the complaint the defendants' vehicle was described as a motor cab and as a taxicab interchangeably. In the claim of proof...