Sigel v. Gordon

• Decision Date: 25 July 1933
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: SIGEL v. GORDON et al.

167 A. 719

117 Conn. 271

SIGEL v. GORDON et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 25, 1933

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

Action by Ann Sigel, administratrix of the estate of Morris M Sigel, deceased, against Harry Gordon, as administrator of the estate of James Neville, deceased, and others, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's decedent, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant's decedent. The case was tried to the jury, and a verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

No error.

Ralph O. Wells, William S. Locke, and Bernard E. Dubin, all of Hartford (Jacob Dunn, of Hartford, on the brief), for appellant.

Warren Maxwell, of Hartford, for appellee.

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

HINMAN, Judge.

The plaintiff's decedent, Morris Sigel, was general manager and the defendant's decedent, Neville, was an employee of the same corporation, and on December 2, 1932, they made a business trip from Hartford to New York in Neville's car Sigel driving. At about 8 o'clock in the evening they left New York on the return trip. Sigel drove to Bridgeport, but there complained of being tired and asked Neville to take the wheel, saying, " You drive the rest of the way home to Hartford." Neville drove from Bridgeport to New Haven and was still driving when they left there for Hartford at 12:40 in the morning of December 3d. At about 1:30 a. m. Joseph McGuire was driving his truck north on the main highway in Meriden, on his own righthand side of the road, when it was struck from the rear by the Ford coupéoccupied by Sigel and Neville. The road at that point was of concrete, eighteen to twenty feet wide, with a black center line and good shoulders, and was straight and substantially level for a distance of at least one thousand feet in either direction. There was no other traffic in the vicinity, and it was extremely dark. The truck was equipped with a tail light and two reflectors. The foregoing facts were undisputed. The jury might well have found that the tail light was lighted and the reflectors in good condition. The bottom of the body of the truck was so high that the radiator of a Ford could and did run under it, and the effect of the collision was to push the entire top of the coupéback. Apparently the Ford stopped practically at the point of collision, and the investigating officers found it in the center of the road, mostly to the left of the center line. Both occupants were unconscious and were rushed to the Meriden Hospital. Sigel was dead on arrival, and Neville died about three hours later, without having regained consciousness.

Although there was no definite testimony as to which of the men was driving or was found behind the wheel after the accident, the jury might reasonably have inferred from the nature of their respective injuries and from the fact that Neville was driving when they left New Haven that he was the driver when the collision occurred. Weidlich v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 93 Conn. 438, 106 A. 323, 324; Wigmore, Evidence, § § 102, 237. It is conceded that the transportation was for the mutual benefit of both parties, so that the guest statute (Gen. St. 1930, § 1628), is not applicable and available to absolve the driver from responsibility for mere negligence. Kruy v. Smith, 108 Conn. 628, 144 A. 304; Russell v. Parlee, 115 Conn. 687, 690, 163 A. 404. As the person charged with negligence as well as the plaintiff's decedent died as a result of the...