Staplins v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 13 February 1936
• Citation: 121 Conn. 123,183 A. 398
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STAPLINS v. MURPHY et al.

183 A. 398

121 Conn. 123

STAPLINS v. MURPHY et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 13, 1936

Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Newell Jennings. Judge.

Action by Anna M. Staplins, administratrix, against Ernest J. Murphy and others, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's decedent alleged to have been caused by the negligence of one defendant and the reckless misconduct of another defendant. From a verdict and judgment for the defendants, the plaintiff appeals.

No error.

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

Perry J. Hollandersky, of New London, for appellant.

Charles V. James and Arthur M. Brown, both of Norwich, for appellees Murphy et al.

Francis F. McGuire and Frank L. McGuire, both of New London, for appellee Durant.

BANKS Judge.

Plaintiff's decedent was a guest in an automobile owned and operated by Frank McManus, since deceased, which came into collision with an automobile owned by the defendant William B. Waterman Incorporated, and operated by the defendant Murphy, resulting in his death. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant Durant, administrator of McManus' estate and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the other defendants.

The plaintiff alleges error in the denial of her motion to set these verdicts aside, also errors in the charge of the court. The jury might reasonably have found the following facts: On the afternoon of December 17, 1933, plaintiff's decedent was riding as a guest of McManus, who was driving through the town of East Lyme on his way from New London to New Haven. The car had rounded a long gradual curve on a long up grade, and was passing over the crest of the grade at a speed of between 30 and 40 miles an hour. The road at this point was of cement, 20 feet wide with 4-foot shoulders on either side. There had been a drizzling rain, resulting in a sleeting condition, and the surface of the road was wet and slippery. The McManus car was being operated in " free wheeling," a device which disengages the gears and allows the car to run without the braking power of the engine. A car operated by the defendant Murphy was approaching from the opposite direction at a speed of between 30 and 40 miles an hour. The McManus car suddenly skidded to the right onto the shoulder of the road, and then shot diagonally across the road toward the Murphy car, which was then about 40 feet away, which it struck and pushed off the road and against a bank about 5 feet beyond the outside edge of the shoulder of the road. There was a skid mark made by the right rear wheel of the Murphy car, running from the wheel to the left rear wheel, and nearly at right angles to the edge of the cement, indicating that the car had been pushed sideways for its own width after it had come to a stop on the shoulder of the road. After the collision, the two cars were side headed toward New London, and the right side and right front end of the McManus car were crushed in.

Plaintiff's decedent was a guest of McManus, and, under the guest statute (Gen. St. 1930, § 1628), the plaintiff can recover from his estate only upon proof of reckless misconduct on his part. The court directed a verdict in favor of the McManus estate on the ground that there was no evidence of such misconduct sufficient to go to the jury. In this it did not err. The immediate cause of the accident was undoubtedly the skidding of the McManus car. That would not in itself be evidence of negligence on his part, and still less of reckless misconduct. James v. Von Schuckman, 115 Conn. 490, 162 A. 3; ...