Tower v. Camp
| Decision Date | 30 July 1925 |
| Citation | 103 Conn. 41,130 A. 86 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | TOWER v. CAMP ET AL. MILLER v. CAMP ET AL. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Edwin C Dickenson, Judge.
Actions by Clara E. Tower and by Ella MacGregor Miller against Charles W. Camp and others, to recover damages for personal injuries, tried together by consent. From a judgment for plaintiffs in each case, defendants appeal. No error.
The plaintiffs in these actions were, on October 8, 1923, guests and passengers in an automobile owned and then operated by one William H. Goodrich, and were injured in a collision of Goodrich's car with a truck which was attached to the rear of a car which was operated by Randolph E. Camp and towing the truck. The complaints in the two cases are identical in all the material allegations, and the actions were by consent tried together, and a joint finding of facts made by the trial court covering both.
Neither plaintiff had any knowledge of the situation, and no action on her part contributed to the collision. The answer to each complaint was a general denial.
The court found that the Camp car was operated as stated in the complaint upon the business of defendants, and had been stripped of its tonneau and equipped with a crane as a wrecker, and on the date mentioned in the complaint, at about 11:30 p. m., was engaged in towing a heavy truck, which had been damaged so that its steering gear could not be used. Part of the weight of the forward end of the truck was taken up by the crane of the wrecker, but not all of it. Because the truck greatly exceeded in weight the towing car, one front wheel rested on the ground while the other front wheel was raised from the ground. The two rear wheels of the truck bore the weight of the rear end. The defendant had headlights and a rear red light on the wrecker, and three red lights or lanterns on the left side of the truck, one at the front end one approximately half-way back, and one on the rear end. The forward end of the truck was fastened to the crane by a chain which ran through an eyebolt in the top of the crane and through goosenecks at either corner of the front of the truck. This chain passed through an eyebolt in the end of a drawbar extending back from the center of the rear frame of the wrecker, and was made fast to the front axle of the truck. The defendants were proceeding on the state road from Milldale to Cheshire at a rate of approximately 8 miles per hour.
Goodrich, who was driving his Star touring car in an opposite direction at a rate of speed of from 20 to 30 miles an hour and his wife who sat beside him on the front seat of his car, saw the defendants' headlights and a red light above them a considerable distance away. As the cars drew near together the headlights of the defendants' car so blinded Goodrich that he could not see the road ahead of him. He did not slow down. Goodrich's car passed the defendants' wrecker, and the left front end of the Goodrich car collided with the rear left wheel of the truck. The Goodrich car passed so closely to the wrecker that the witness Coss sitting on the floor of the defendants' car with his feet on its left running board could " reach out and touch the Goodrich car."
The left front wheel of the Goodrich car was broken off by the force of the collision with the defendant's truck. The axle upon which (was) a projecting iron thereupon dropped to the ground and caused the marks upon the concrete road which were freshly made and easily traced upon the concrete. The width of the wrecker and the width of the truck were substantially the same, and both were standard width.
The collision took place in substantially the center of the road. The defendants' cars at the time of collision were headed diagonally to the right across the highway with the rear end of the truck in tow projecting over the center line of the highway. At the time of collision the Goodrich car, passing by the defendants' wrecker, struck the projecting end of the defendants' truck in substantially the center of the road. Each operator was negligent in failing to yield the other his half of the road, and Goodrich was further negligent in proceeding without slackening his speed when blinded by the lights of the defendants' wrecker. The negligence of both operators contributed materially and essentially to cause the injuries of the plaintiffs. Each plaintiff was a guest of Goodrich, riding in the rear seat of the car, and no negligence in the conduct of either plaintiff contributed in any way to her injuries.
The court found the injuries sustained by each of the plaintiffs, and that they were caused by negligence of the defendants, and awarded damages of $1,500 to the plaintiff Tower, and of $1,000 to the plaintiff Miller.
The defendants claimed as matter of law that in each case they were not negligent, and that no negligence on their part contributed materially or essentially to the injuries of either plaintiff.
Cornelius J. Danaher, of Meriden, for appellants.
Noble E. Pierce, of Bristol, for appellees.
KEELER, J. (after stating the facts as above).
Certain of the reasons of appeal are general, and are all in effect that the defendants were not negligent, and that judgment should have been the other way. The ninth reason of appeal concerned with a statement of fact in the memorandum of decision is not before us, unless we comply with defendants' request and correct the finding by placing it therein. We see no reason for so doing. The facts upon which the court rested its decision are fully set...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bushnell v. Bushnell
... ... 1005; Brown v. New Haven Taxicab Co., 93 Conn. 251, ... 257, 105 A. 706; Walters v. Hansen, 99 Conn. 680, ... 683, 122 A. 564; Tower v. Camp, 103 Conn. 41, 46, ... 130 A. 86 ... In any ... ordinary case, one cannot go to sleep while driving an ... automobile without ... ...
-
Hester v. Coliseum Motor Co., 1587
...reference to his operation of his automobile arises from the manner in which the automobile was driven around the curve." In Tower v. Camp, 103 Conn. 41, 130 A. 86, a case more closely resembling that before us even than Wurl v. Watson, supra, the plaintiffs also recovered damages for perso......
-
Gower v. Strain
... ... 1005; Brown v. New Haven Taxicab Co., 93 Conn. 251, ... 257, 105 A. 706; Walters v. Hansen, 99 Conn. 680, ... 683, 122 A. 564; Tower v. Camp, 103 Conn. 41, 46, ... 130 A. 86; Carlson v. Connecticut Co., 95 Conn. 724, ... 112 A. 646; Sliwowoski v. New York, N. H. & H. R ... Co., ... ...
-
Davis v. P. Gambardella & Son Cheese Corp.
...the plaintiff for alleged impairment of earning capacity and in denying the defendants' motion for a special finding.''In Tower v. Camp, 103 Conn. 41, 45, 130 A. 86, we said that a party whose motion for a special finding has been denied may enforce his right to one by proper procedure but ......