Schlag v. Paffney

• Decision Date: 23 December 1925
• Citation: Schlag v. Paffney, 103 Conn. 683, 131 A. 420 (Conn. 1925)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: SCHLAG v. PAFFNEY.

131 A. 420

103 Conn. 683

SCHLAG v. PAFFNEY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 23, 1925

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; George E. Hinman Judge.

Action by Carrie Schlag, administratrix, against Arthur Paffney.Verdict for defendant set aside, and he appeals.Error, and cause remanded, with direction.

Haines J., dissenting.

Charles W. Bauby, of Waterbury, for appellant.

Edward B. Reiley and Sidney S. Cassel, both of Waterbury, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and CURTIS, KEELER, MALTBIE, and HAINES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court set aside the verdict for the reason that the case established by an overwhelming preponderance that the defendant was negligent in the operation of the truck, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the death of the decedent, and that the conclusion was inescapable that the jury were moved by inadmissible considerations, and that the verdict was the product of sympathy or prejudice.

The negligence claimed by the plaintiff to have been proved was in the operation of the truck at a reckless and dangerous rate of speed.Three witnesses testified in behalf of the plaintiff, and six in behalf of the defendant.In this conflict of the evidence, the jury found in favor of the contention of the defendant.We do not find upon an examination of the evidence an overwhelming preponderance in favor of the plaintiff.All that we find is a case of conflicting evidence, depending for its solution upon the credibility of witnesses.Nor are we able to find upon the record a case where the jury have been swayed by prejudice or sympathy, much less where they have been so swayed in disregard of the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence.We recognize that the trial court in setting aside this verdict acted in the exercise of a sound discretion, and that his action is not to be disturbed by us unless it clearly appears that his discretion was...