Siller v. Siller

• Decision Date: 03 October 1930
• Citation: 112 Conn. 145,151 A. 524
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: SILLER v. SILLER et ux.

151 A. 524

112 Conn. 145

SILLER v. SILLER et ux.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

October 3, 1930

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John Rufus Booth Judge.

Action by Sarah Siller against Harry A. Siller and wife, for damages for personal injuries caused plaintiff while riding as guest in an automobile operated by defendant Eva Siller, agent for defendant Harry A. Siller. Verdict was rendered for defendants, plaintiff moved to set the verdict aside, and from a denial of a motion and for errors in the charge plaintiff appeals.

Error and new trial ordered.

Philip Reich, of Bridgeport, for appellant.

Raymond E. Baldwin, of Bridgeport, for appellees.

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

WHEELER, C.J.

The plaintiff offered evidence to prove these facts: On September 2, 1928, the defendant Eva Siller, while operating a family car, an automobile belonging to her husband, the defendant Harry A. Siller, invited the plaintiff to ride with her. The plaintiff at first refused, and then, upon the insistence of Mrs. Siller that she accompany her upon the ride and take care of the infant child of the defendants, agreed to do so and occupied on the drive the rear seat with the child. Mrs. Siller left the automobile to make certain purchases. Upon returning she entered the car not completely closing the right front door of the automobile, again while the automobile was in motion she attempted but failed to close the door, and, while the automobile was still in motion Mrs. Siller took her hand off the steering wheel, turned her head, leaned over, and attempted to close this door for the third time. In so doing she lost control of the automobile which ran into a fence bordering the highway with considerable force. As a result the plaintiff was thrown " in and about in" the automobile and sustained injuries of a serious and permanent character, and for the recovery of damages for these injuries she brings this action. The pleadings were closed on February 8, 1929.

Prior to the presentation of the evidence the plaintiff introduced a certified copy of chapter 308 of the Public Acts of 1927, together with evidence that the Governor had not approved of this act until June 8, 1927, and that the Legislature adjourned on May 6, 1927. Of these facts the court took judicial notice. It did not appear on what date this bill was presented to the Governor for his approval. The plaintiff through her counsel claimed that, since the accident occurred on September 2, 1928, she was only obliged to prove the elements of a common-law action for negligence and not the cause of action defined in chapter 308 of the Public Acts of 1927, denominated the Guest Act, as " caused by his heedlessness and his reckless disregard of the rights of others," as construed in Bordonaro v. Senk, 109 Conn. 428, 147 A. 136. The plaintiff also claimed that this act was unconstitutional because signed by the Governor more than three days, excluding Sundays, after the Legislature had adjourned. She further claimed that the validating acts passed by the General Assembly at its Special Session in August, 1929 (see Pub. Acts 1929 [Sp. Sess.] cc. 1-5), were invalid in so far as they attempted to affect the rights of passengers in automobiles prior to the passage of such acts. On defendants' motion for a directed verdict plaintiff's counsel claimed that, while it was unnecessary for her to prove more than negligence, she had sufficiently proved the cause of action defined in chapter 308.

Prior to the argument to the jury the court stated that it would charge the jury upon the assumption that the only cause of action before the jury was that based upon chapter 308, and the court did so charge. The cause of action based upon negligence was thus excluded from the consideration of the jury. The charge and the record fail to state upon what ground the court reached its conclusion.

As far as concerned the action under the Guest Act, that act was void because within the ruling in State v. McCook, 109 Conn. 621, 147 A. 126, 127, 64 A.L.R. 1453, unless it had been validated by the validating acts passed at the Special Session of the General Assembly on August 6, 1929. The ruling in Preveslin v. Derby & Ansonia Developing Co. (decided Oct. 3, 1930) 112 Conn. 129, 151 A. 518, controls the decision of this case. The validating acts were ineffective as applied to that case, and they are equally so in this case for the reasons given in the Preveslin Case.

No retrospective action based upon the Guest Act of 1927 could prevail after the decision of the McCook case. The right of action under the guest act, if valid superseded the action based upon our common-law rule, as declared in Dickerson v. Connecticut Co., 98 Conn. 87, 118 A. 518, that the owner of an automobile is bound to exercise ordinary or reasonable care in the operation of a motor vehicle toward a guest invited by him to ride in his vehicle, and, if he fails in this duty, he is liable in damages to the guest injured in consequence of his negligence. The common-law right of action for negligence was never suspended by the guest statute whose constitutionality the plaintiff might have attacked at any time, and after the decision in the McCook Case with the knowledge that in an analogous situation it had been determined that another act was invalid because not signed by the Governor within the period...