Rossi v. Connecticut Co.
| Decision Date | 08 January 1937 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DI ROSSI v. CONNECTICUT CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Patrick B O'Sullivan, Judge.
Action by Madeline Di Rossi against the Connecticut Company to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, brought to the superior court and tried to a jury. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
No error.
Raymond E. Baldwin, of Bridgeport, for appellant.
Charles E. Moore and P. Lawrence Epifanio, both of Stamford for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN, JJ.
The plaintiff in this action claims that she was riding as a passenger in a motor-bus operated by the defendant as a common carrier of passengers; and that on April 21, 1934, at about 2 p. m., a collision occurred at the intersection of Main Street and Park Row in Stamford between the bus and an automobile, whereby she was thrown violently against the operator's seat and injured. She claimed that her injuries were caused by the negligence of the driver of the bus. The case was tried to the jury and a verdict returned for the plaintiff which the trial court refused to set aside upon motion of the defendant. The only error claimed upon this appeal is the action of the trial court in refusing to set aside the verdict.
Taking the view of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff, the jury might reasonably have found the facts as follows: Main street in Stamford runs approximately east and west and is intersected by Park Row, which runs north and south and extends into Atlantic street. The plaintiff boarded the bus at a platform in front of the town hall intending to proceed out Atlantic street to the Stamford Hospital. The bus proceeded easterly on Main street to a point opposite the southeast corner of Central Park and there came to a stop headed northerly. At that time, there was heavy traffic proceeding westerly on Main street and the operator of the bus awaited a signal from a traffic officer who stood between two sets of trolley tracks on Main street. The officer, observing a break, in the traffic which was proceeding to the west, blew his whistle and put up his hand to stop an automobile operated by Nina C. Klett which, at that time, was proceeding westerly on Main street at about 100 feet distance. At the same time, the officer signaled the operator of the bus to proceed northerly across the line of traffic on Main street. The officer observed that the Klett car had not stopped, so he stepped to the north over the northerly side of the car tracks ahead of the bus holding his hand as a signal to the Klett car to stop, which it failed to do. In the meantime the driver of the bus, upon the officer's first signal, proceeded to cross Main street. There were four gears on the bus, and he started in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crowell v. Middletown Sav. Bank
...189 A. 172 122 Conn. 362 CROWELL v. MIDDLETOWN SAV. BANK. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.January 8, 1937 ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Arthur F. Ells, Judge ... Action ... tried to a jury by ... ...
-
di Rossi v. Conn. Co.
... 188 A. 926 DI ROSSI v. CONNECTICUT Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. Jan. 8, 1937. Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Patrick B. O'Sullivan, Judge. Action by Madeline Di Rossi against the Connecticut Company to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been ca......
-
Endelman v. Palmer
...to guard the decedent against dangers which might reasonably be expected to occur under the circumstances. See Di Rossi v. Connecticut Co., 122 Conn. 372, 188 A. 926; Dwyer v. Connecticut Co., 103 Conn. 678, 131 A. 838; Dokus v. Palmer, 130 Conn. 247, 33 A.2d 315. This is the Connecticut ru......
-
Peck v. Fanion
...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. In the complaint the defendants' vehicle was described as a motor cab and as a taxicab interchangeably. In the claim of proof of both p......