Pfaff v. H.T. Smith Express Co.

• Decision Date: 03 December 1935
• Citation: 181 A. 621,120 Conn. 553
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: PFAFF v. H. T. SMITH EXPRESS CO. et al.

181 A. 621

120 Conn. 553

PFAFF v. H. T. SMITH EXPRESS CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 3, 1935

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Alfred C. Baldwin Judge.

Action by Arthur Pfaff against the H. T. Smith Express Company and others to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants. The court directed a verdict for the defendants, and from the judgment entered thereon, plaintiff appeals.

Error judgment set aside, and new trial ordered.

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

William T. Holleran, and Frank W. Daley, both of New Haven, for appellant.

Thomas R. Robinson, of New Haven (Daniel L. O'Neill, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellees.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff was injured by a truck owned by the defendant the H. T. Smith Express Company and driven by the other defendant. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, and this appeal is from its refusal to set aside that verdict. The verdict was directed upon a motion made after the plaintiff had concluded his evidence and the defendants had rested without offering any testimony. Consequently, there is little conflict of testimony. The plaintiff was assistant to the engineer in charge of the construction by the state of a macadam highway in North Branford. The accident out of which the injuries arose occurred at a place designated on the plans as Station 78. The subgrade of this portion of the highway had been completed, the roadbed being 21 1/2 feet wide. Trucks drawing stones from a point to the east passed over this subgrade until they had reached Station 78, when they crossed the shoulder of the new road to the old road, on which they proceeded further to the west; and, when empty, they returned over the same course. The place where they crossed the shoulder was so narrow as to permit only one truck to pass at a time.

It was the duty of the plaintiff, as a loaded truck came from the east, to take from the driver a ticket showing the amount of his load, and, by a special arrangement, to give to the driver of one truck, that of Verillo, as it returned empty, a ticket showing the amount he had taken on his last load. This required the plaintiff, in order not to delay the work, to stand in the middle of the roadway. On the day of the accident he saw a truck of the Smith Company approaching from the east, loaded, and walked to the center of the road so as to be upon its left side, that on which the driver was sitting, to take the ticket from him. It was not practical for the plaintiff to take the ticket while standing on the right side of the truck, because of the position of the driver and the height of the cab. As the plaintiff waited for the truck to come to him, he noticed the empty Verillo truck approaching from the west, about a hundred feet away. When the Smith truck reached him, the Verillo truck was already at or near the place where the trucks crossed the shoulder of the road, and the Smith truck was forced to stop to let the other proceed far enough to clear the way. As the Smith truck stood in the roadway, the plaintiff, while getting the ticket from its driver, faced it, with his legs very close to the running board at the side of the cab. He then turned his back to it to give the ticket to the driver of the Verillo truck. That truck was then some 20 or 25...