State v. Block
| Decision Date | 20 December 1913 |
| Citation | 89 A. 167,87 Conn. 573 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. BLOCK. |
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 7, pp. 5958-5972; vol. 8, p. 7779.]
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Howard J. Curtis, Judge.
Herman Block was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Chamberlain & Hull and John C. Chamberlain, all of Bridgeport, for appellant.
Stiles Judson, State's Atty., of Bridgeport, for the State.
The information charges that on July 31, 1912, the accused was driving an automobile upon the highway in Newtown, in which Levi C. Gilbert, then of Newtown, was riding as a passenger; that the accused then and there negligently drove such automobile at a dangerous rate of speed upon an embankment of stones and earth at the side of the traveled path; that such negligent driving of the automobile was done with reckless disregard of the safety of Gilbert and was criminal negligence; that such recklessly negligent driving caused Gilbert to be thrown from the automobile upon the ground, wounded and bruised about the head and body; and that such wounding and bruising, so caused, directly and proximately caused the death of Gilbert on August 3, 1912.
The state claimed and offered evidence tending to prove that Gilbert was taken at once to a hospital in Danbury and there delirium tremens developed, from which he died August 3, 1912; that Gilbert at the time of the injury had an alcoholic brain, which rendered him susceptible to delirium tremens from a blow or injury to his head; that the delirium tremens causing his death was caused by the injuries received in being thrown from the car as aforesaid, and that delirium tremens causing his death would not then have occurred except for such blows or injuries; that the injuries received in the fall from the car would not have caused Gilbert's death if he had not had an alcohol brain; that Gilbert was not intoxicated at the time of the accident; and that the severe physical shock and wounds produced delirium tremens resulting in his death.
The defendant offered evidence to prove and claimed to have proved that the deceased was a man of drinking habits and was drunk at the time of the accident; that the autopsy disclosed that he had an alcoholic brain; that the delirium tremens, from which he died, was the direct and natural sequence of his habits in life and his physical condition; that there was no necessary connection between a shock like the one disclosed in evidence and the disease from which the man died; and that he might have had the tremens and died when he did if the accident had not taken place.
The trial court in its charge to the jury used this language: Exception is taken to this part of the charge because, as the defendant contends, the court should have instructed the jury that the state must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt that the illness which caused this man's death was the direct result of this accident and could not have been caused by any other agency."
Although no case precisely like the present is treated in the books yet the general subject has been often considered. Bishop states the doctrine to be that: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bunkley
...or "recklessness" in the act of operating a motor vehicle was subject to punishment under the manslaughter statute. See State v. Block, 87 Conn. 573, 89 A. 167 (1913); State v. Goetz, 83 Conn. 437, 76 A. 1000 (1910); State v. Campbell, 82 Conn. 671, 74 A. 927 (1910). Frequently, these vario......
-
State v. Miranda
...medical care. State v. Tomassi, supra, 119. Thus, any discussion of liability based on omission in either Tomassi or State v. Block, 87 Conn. 573, 576, 89 A. 167 (1913), the case cited in Tomassi for the proposition that an act or omission need only be a contributory cause of death, is rele......
-
State v. Rounds
... ... upon the testimony of witnesses expert in those matters, that ... is, expert medical evidence; and, when that evidence is ... undisputed and unimpeached, neither court nor jury may ... disregard it. Sheldon v. Wright, 80 Vt. 298; ... Ryder v. Last Block Co., 91 Vt. 158; Lawson v ... Crane, 83 Vt. 115, 119; State v. Rusch, 95 ... W.Va. 132, 120 S.E. 304; Little v. Commonwealth, 210 ... Ky. 494, 276 S.W. 158; Central Vt. Ry. Co. v. Bowers ... Granite Co., 100 Vt. 26, 30; Ewing v. Goode, 78 ... F. 442; Fledge v. State, 93 Neb. 610, ... ...
-
People v. Harrison
...Cal.2d 387, 393, 94 P.2d 559, 124 A.L.R. 1123; Johnson v. State, 142 Ala. 70, 38 So. 182, 183, 2 L.R.A.,N.S., 897; State v. Block, 87 Conn. 573, 89 A. 167, 49 L.R.A.,N.S., 913; State v. Leopold, 110 Conn. 55, 147 A. 118, 121; State v. Bessar, 213 La. 299, 34 So.2d 785, 789; State v. Schaub,......