Sparico v. Munzenmaier.

• Citation: 134 Conn. 194,56 A.2d 165
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 03 December 1947
• Parties: SPARICO v. MUNZENMAIER.

134 Conn. 194

56 A.2d 165

SPARICO

v.MUNZENMAIER.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 3, 1947.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; O'Sullivan, Judge.

Action by Thomas Sparico against August Munzenmaier to recover damages for injury to plaintiff's truck alleged to have been caused by negligence of defendant wherein defendant filed a cross-complaint and issues were tried to a jury. From the action of the court setting aside a verdict for the defendant on the complaint and cross-complaint, defendant appeals.

No error.

Edward L. Reynolds, John J. Kinney, Jr., and Louis Godfried, all of New Haven, for appellant.

T. Holmes Bracken and Martin E. Gormley, both of New Haven, for appellee.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.

JENNINGS, Judge.

The trial court set aside a verdict for the defendant on the complaint and cross-complaint because of its failure to charge in accordance with the plaintiff's written request. Its action raises the only question on this appeal.

The action involved cross-claims by the owners of cars in collision at an intersection. There was no dispute about the general situation. Route 80 in East Haven runs generally east and west. It consists of two concrete strips each ten feet wide, with shoulders. High Street enters but does not cross it from the southwest at an acute angle. George Lepric, driving the plaintiff's truck on Route 80, was approaching this intersection from the west. The defendant was driving his Pontiac west on the same highway. The two vehicles were in collision at a point within the intersection of the two highways.

The plaintiff's claims of proof described the accident substantially as follows: The defendant turned to his left before he reached the intersection of the center lines of the two highways to turn into High Street; he was then about 50 feet from the plaintiff's truck. Lepric, in an effort to avoid a collision, turned to his left. The defendant then tried to cut back into the north panel and the cars collided in about the center of Route 80.

The plaintiff seasonably filed the following written request to charge: ‘Any person shall, at the intersection of public highways, keep to the right of the intersection of the centers of such highways when turning to the left. Section 1639, General Statutes of Connecticut, Revision of 1930.’ The trial court inadvertently failed so to charge and it set the verdict aside on that ground and stated that ‘There is no doubt in my mind but that the failure to submit the requested specification was harmful error.’ The charge requested was relevant to the claims of proof and was supported by a specific allegation of negligence, in substantially the same words, in the plaintiff's answer to the defendant's cross-complaint. The ruling must stand unless one of the defendant's numerous claims is valid.

Section 1639 has been amended by § 544e of the Cumulative Supplement of 1939, but the part applicable to this case was not changed. The late filing of the answer during the trial does not help the defendant. It was in the file when the case went to the jury. The fact that the court repeatedly, in various ways, charged that any person meeting another on the highway is under a duty to seasonably turn to the right so as to yield half of the traveled portion of the highway to the other does not cover the specific request in question and does not cure the error. Allegations in the plaintiff's pleadings...