Petrillo v. Connecticut Co.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1917 |
| Citation | 92 Conn. 235,102 A. 607 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | PETRILLO. v. CONNECTICUT CO. |
Appeal from Common Pleas Court, New Haven County; Earnest C. Simpson, Judge.
Action by John Petrillo against the Connecticut Company to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff's automobile through a collision with defendant's trolley car, alleged to have been caused by negligence of the defendant's motorman. From refusal to set aside judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. No error.
Joseph Koletsky, of New Haven, for appellant.
Seth W. Baldwin, of New Haven, for appellee.
Upon the evidence presented by the plaintiff, assumed to be true, it would have been impossible for a trier reasonably to find that he was free from contributory negligence. There was no substantial evidence to that effect worthy of being weighed and considered by the jury. On the contrary, the evidence unmistakably shows that the plaintiff's negligence was a proximate cause of the head-on collision between his car and the defendant's, in that he failed to discover, as in the exercise of ordinary prudence he should have done, the presence of the defendant's trolley car approaching him from the front when it was some distance away and plainly visible, or omitted to take with reasonable promptness the simple precaution for his safety of turning his machine off from the defendant's tracks, over one rail of which his right-hand wheels at the time extended.
Nor does the evidence disclose a situation in which the plaintiff might successfully appeal to the doctrine of supervening negligence. It nowhere appears that the defendant's motorman, after he became aware or in the exercise of due care, should have become aware of the defendant's peril, and that he reasonably could not or would not save himself from harm, could by means reasonably within his power have prevented the collision which followed. Nehring v. Conn. Co., 86 Conn. 109, 120, 121, 84 Atl. 301, 524, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 896, 902. There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Correnti v. Catino
...160 A. 892 115 Conn. 213 CORRENTI v. CATINO. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.June 21, 1932 ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Arthur F. Ells, Judge ... Action ... by Frank Correnti ... afford a reasonable basis for finding each and all of these ... elements to have existed, the doctrine may not be applied, ... Petrillo v. Connecticut Co., 92 Conn. 235, 236, 102 ... A. 607; Curtis v. Bristol & Plainville Electric Co., ... 102 Conn. 238, 128 A. 517; Oddwyez v ... ...
-
DePaola v. Seamour
...a reasonable basis for finding each and all of these elements to have existed the doctrine may not be applied. Petrillo v. Connecticut Co., 92 Conn. 235, 236, 102 A. 607; Curtis v. Bristol & Plainville Electric Co., 102 Conn. 238, 128 A. 517; Oddwycz v. Connecticut Co., 108 Conn. 71, 142 A.......
-
Richard v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co.
... ... 451 104 Conn. 229 RICHARD v. NEW YORK, N.H. & H. R. CO. WHITAKER ET AL. v. NEW YORK, N.H. & H. R. CO. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.February 23, 1926 ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, Hartford County; Allyn L. Brown, Judge ... Actions ... by John G ... Levinson, 111 ... A. 794, 95 Conn. 466, 468; Hygienic Ice Co. v ... Connecticut Co., 96 A. 152, 90 Conn. 21, 23; ... Petrillo v. Connecticut Co., 102 A. 607, 92 Conn ... 235, 236; Nehring v. Connecticut Co., 84 A. 301, ... 524, 86 Conn. 109, 120, 45 L.R.A. (N. S.) 896, ... ...
-
Ireland v. Connecticut Co.
... ... contributory negligence was within the province of the jury ... Livingston v. Chambers, 191 Iowa, 966, 183 N.W. 429; ... Speakes Lime & Cement Co. v. Duluth Street Ry. Co., ... 172 Wis. 475, 179 N.W. 596. The case is very different from ... Petrillo v. Connecticut Co., 92 Conn. 235, 102 A ... 607, relied upon by the defendant company. There it was said ... that the evidence unmistakably showed the plaintiff guilty of ... contributory negligence " in that he failed to discover, ... as in the exercise of ordinary prudence he should have ... ...