Simon v. Nelson

• Decision Date: 06 February 1934
• Citation: 170 A. 796,118 Conn. 154
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: SIMON v. NELSON (two cases).

170 A. 796

118 Conn. 154

SIMON v. NELSON (two cases).

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 6, 1934

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Edwin C. Dickenson Judge.

Actions by Charles Simon and by John C. Simon against Sven J. Nelson to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant, brought to the superior court and tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for defendant in each case, and plaintiffs appeal.

No error in either case.

Isadore L. Kotler, Francis J. King, James E. Murphy, and Alexander L. DeLaney, all of Bridgeport, for appellants.

Thomas R. Robinson and Daniel L. O'Neill both of New Haven, for appellee.

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

BANKS Judge.

These actions, which were tried together, arose out of a collision which occurred in the town of Seekonk, Mass., between an automobile owned and driven by the plaintiff John C. Simon and one driven by the agent of the defendant. The plaintiff Charles Simon is the minor son of John C. Simon and was a passenger in his father's car. Newman avenue in Seekonk runs in a general northerly and southerly direction. It divides into two branches; that on the left, as one goes north, being called Brook street, and that on the right Newman avenue. A triangular space is formed between the two branches with its apex toward the south. The defendant's car was proceeding north from Newman avenue into Brook street, and the plaintiffs' car was proceeding south on Brook street and turned to the left to cross the base of the triangle and proceed in a northerly direction on Newman Avenue, and the two cars come into collision.

The defendant claimed that the driver of the Simon car was guilty of contributory negligence, in that he failed to keep to the right of the center of the intersection as he turned from Brook street into Newman avenue. The court charged the jury that, since the accident happened in Massachusetts, the substantive law of that state was to be applied, and that the Massachusetts statute (G. L. [Ter. Ed.], c. 90, § 14) required that an operator of a motor vehicle upon approaching a street intersection was required to slow down and pass to the right of the center of the intersection before turning to the left. The court then told the jury that it appeared to be undisputed that, upon the plaintiff's own evidence, he failed to keep to the right of the center of the intersection of the two streets, and said: " This was negligence and, if it was a substantial factor in causing the collision, the plaintiff John C. Simon would not be entitled to a verdict in this action upon the first count in his complaint." Such would be the result, in the case of an accident occurring in this state, of a violation of our statute which is similar to that here invoked. Andrew v. White Bus Line Corporation, 115 Conn. 464, 161 A. 792. The law is otherwise in Massachusetts. There it is held that the violation of such a statute is not negligence per se, but is merely evidence of negligence. Newcomb v. Boston Protective Department, 146 Mass. 596, 16 N.E. 555, 4 Am.St.Rep. 354; Finnegan v. Winslow Skate Mfg. Co., 189 Mass. 580, 76 N.E. 192; Welch v. Checker Taxi Co., 262 Mass. 310, 159 N.E. 622. We take judicial notice of these decisions as evidence of the common law of that state, ...