Syssa v. Hemingway

• Decision Date: 25 July 1927
• Citation: Syssa v. Hemingway, 138 A. 223, 106 Conn. 499 (Conn. 1927)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: SYSSA v. HEMINGWAY.

138 A. 223

106 Conn. 499

SYSSA v. HEMINGWAY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 25, 1927

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; L. P. Waldo Marvin Judge.

Action by John Syssa, administrator, against B. Havens Hemingway, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant's servant, brought to the superior court, and tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $5,000 and defendant appeals. Error, and new trial ordered.

Walter E. Monagan and Maurice T. Healey, Jr., both of Waterbury, for appellant.

Michael V. Blansfield and Herman B. Engelman, both of Waterbury, for appellee.

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

HINMAN, J.

The plaintiff's decedent, Johanna Syssa, while crossing Main street in Watertown, was struck and killed by defendant's automobile. The highway had recently been reconstructed of concrete, and only the east side was open for travel; the west side being covered with hay or straw. Westerly from the concrete road was a trolley track, on which, at the time, a car was stopping, or had stopped, to take on passengers. Mrs. Syssa was proceeding from the easterly side across the concrete portion of the highway, for the purpose of boarding the trolley car. Witnesses called by the plaintiff testified that the defendant's automobile passed the trolley car after it had stopped and immediately before striking Mrs. Syssa, and was proceeding at a fast and increasing rate of speed. The defendant's driver claimed that he did not pass the trolley car, but was at all times in advance of it, and that his speed was about 12 or 14 miles per hour. The evidence disclosed that the concrete road was 17.95 feet in width, and the distance from the westerly edge of the concrete to the easterly rail of the trolley track 3.5 feet, the overhang of the trolley car beyond the rail 18 inches, and the width of defendant's car 6 feet. The situation was such, therefore, that the automobile might, without leaving the concrete road, pass the trolley car at a distance of more than 10 feet.

The plaintiff requested the court to charge as to the duty of an operator of a motor vehicle when overtaking or passing a street railway car, as provided by section 37 of chapter 400 of the Public Acts of 1921, and the court read that portion of this section which requires the operator to stop...