Rose v. Campitello

• Decision Date: 12 April 1932
• Citation: 159 A. 887,114 Conn. 637
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ROSE v. CAMPITELLO.

159 A. 887

114 Conn. 637

ROSE v. CAMPITELLO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 12, 1932

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Carl Foster, Judge.

Action by Morris Rose against Bonito Campitello to recover for personal injuries and damage to property, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, brought to the superior court and tried to the court. Judgment for the defendant and appeal by the plaintiff.

Error and new trial ordered.

Plaintiff approaching traffic signal with green light in his favor, who could not safely have stopped before light turned yellow and before entry into intersection, would have right of way over vehicles facing green light, to continue on his course though he was required to operate his car as reasonably prudent person would with knowledge that he had the right of way. Gen.St.1930, § 394 (Rev.1949, § 2518).

Frederick H. Waterhouse and Max Savitt, both of Hartford, for appellant.

James W. Carpenter and Julius G. Day, Jr., both of Hartford, for appellee.

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

MALTBIE, C.J.

The plaintiff, who was driving a taxicab westerly on Elm street in Hartford, collided with the defendant's automobile which was being operated southerly on Hudson street. The court found that both drivers were negligent, and the only question on this appeal is whether the court erred in finding the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence. There are automatic traffic lights at the intersection of Hudson and Elm streets. As the defendant's car approached the intersection the light for north and south traffic was red then turned yellow, and then green just as his car reached the intersection. There were three other cars which had been also proceeding south and had stopped at the intersection because of the red light. The driver of defendant's car, without looking either to the right or left or giving any signal, drove his car to the right of the other cars and between them and the curb and proceeded straight into the intersection. As the plaintiff approached the intersection the light, for east and west traffic was green, turned yellow before or just as he reached the intersection, and red before he reached the center of the intersection. The plaintiff was driving at a speed in excess of twenty miles an hour, and did not change his speed while approaching or after entering the intersection. The two cars came into collision in the west half of the intersection. The court found that reasonable care on the part of the plaintiff required that he should have reduced the speed of his vehicle and given a timely signal upon approaching the intersection, that he failed to do so, and was guilty, of contributory negligence which was a proximate cause of his injuries. This finding of negligence is conclusive unless it appears that " the trier imposed some duty upon the parties which the law did not impose, or absolved them from some duty which the law required of them under the circumstances, or in some other respect violated some rule or principle of law. Farrell v. Waterbury Horse R. Co., 60 Conn. 239, 257, 21 A. 675, 680, 22 A. 544.

The memorandum of decision, to which we may resort for a better understanding of the basis of the court's decision, shows that the trial court based its finding of negligence upon section 1639 of the General Statutes, which requires any person operating a motor vehicle on approaching an intersecting highway to reduce his speed and give a timely signal where reasonable care requires such action, provided signs on the highway legible for a distance of one hundred feet indicate the intersection. It does not appear in the finding that there was any such sign as the statute contemplates at the intersection in...