Santor v. Balnis

• Decision Date: 03 March 1964
• Citation: 151 Conn. 434,199 A.2d 2
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Wayne SANTOR et al. v. Lucille E. BALNIS et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 2

199 A.2d 2

151 Conn. 434

Wayne SANTOR et al. v. Lucille E. BALNIS et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 3, 1964.

Sanford J. Plepler, Manchester, with whom was Herbert A. Lane, Mansfield Center, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Arthur D. Weinstein, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Julius B. Schatz, Hartford, for appellees (defendants).

Before KING, C. J., MURPHY, SHEA, ALCORN and COMLEY, JJ.

COMLEY, Associate Justice.

The named plaintiff is a fourteen-year-old boy, who brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by him when the bicycle which he was riding collided with an automobile driven by the named defendant. At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, and from the judgment rendered thereon the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

Directed verdicts are not favored and should be granted only when the jury could not reasonably and legally reach any other conclusion. Bader v. United Orthodox Synagogue, 148 Conn. 449, 455, 172 A.2d 192; Lurier v. Danbury Bus Corporation, 144 Conn. 544, 546, 135 A.2d 597. We must review the action of the trial court in the light of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiffs. Nuzzo v. Connecticut Steel Co., 147 Conn. 398, 400, 161 A.2d 791.

When so examined, the record indicates that the jury might have found the following facts. About noon on a bright, clear day, the named defendant, hereinafter called the defendant, was driving north on Ash Street in Willimantic, approaching the intersection of Natchaug Street. In this direction Ash Street is on an upgrade. Ash Street is twenty-eight to thirty feet wide, and Natchaug Street is about sixty feet wide. The defendant's car was in second gear, and its speed was from twenty to twenty-five miles per hour. At the same time, the boy was riding his bicycle in a southerly direction on Ash Street, going downhill. As he reached the intersection, he made a left turn into Natchaug Street and was struck by the defendant's car. When the defendant first saw the bicycle, it was on the extreme right-hend side of the southbound lane. Although the defendant claimed that the boy suddenly veered to his left, there was evidence that he made a wide and gradual turn. And although the defendant claimed at one point in her testimony that her vision of the boy was obscured by a passing car, she said on other occasions that her vision was not obscured and that she knew of no reason why she did not see the boy turning to his left into the path of her car.

It is our opinion that, upon all the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, the claims of negligence made by the plaintiffs, especially those relating to lookout and control, raised issues of fact which should have been left to the decision of the jury. It must be borne in mind that the boy was fourteen years of age. We have said concerning the duty owed by the operator of a motor vehicle to children riding on bicycles: 'In overtaking this bicycle the defendant was bound to...