Towhill v. Kane
| Decision Date | 03 February 1960 |
| Citation | 158 A.2d 251,147 Conn. 191 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Thomas TOWHILL et al. v. John KANE. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
William R. Davis, Hartford, for appellant (named plaintiff).
Joseph G. Lynch, Waterbury, for appellee (defendant).
Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JJ.
The plaintiff Thomas Towhill was the owner and operator of an automobile in which the plaintiff Catherine Towhill and the minor plaintiff Kathleen Towhill were passengers. The car had just been backed out of a driveway on the south side of Cambridge Drive in East Hartford when it was struck, on the north side of the street, by the defendant's car, approaching from the east. The evidence as to the precise angle of the Towhill car at the time of the impact was conflicting, although it was headed in a general westerly direction.
The jury returned a verdict, on a single form, in favor of each plaintiff, the largest being in favor of the plaintiff operator. The court, after inspection, returned the jury to consider whether 'the amount is excessively liberal.' While the record lacks clarity, the jury were apparently supplied with new verdict forms to be used in the event that they decided to make any changes. After further deliberation, the jury returned new verdicts, also on a single form. Two of these were identical with the first verdicts. The third was in favor of the defendant as against the plaintiff operator. The three new verdicts were accepted and ordered recorded. The plaintiff operator appealed.
The sole exceptions taken were (a) to the comment of the court, when returning the jury, suggesting that the amount might be excessive and (b) to its action in not accepting the original verdicts and ordering them recorded, even if they were excessive, and disposing of the matter later by ordering, if necessary, a remittitur.
These exceptions did not call the court's attention to any ambiguity in failing to inform the jury which verdict or verdicts they were to reconsider. Nor did counsel voice any objection to the failure of the court, before it instructed the jury to reconsider, to have the verdicts read by the clerk and assented to by the foreman, in accordance with the practice approved in Gillette v. Schroeder, 133 Conn. 682, 685, 54 A.2d 498, and Ferris v. Hotel Pick Arms, Inc., 147 Conn. 72, 74, 157 A.2d 106, and cases cited.
The purpose of the rule (Practice Book, § 153) requiring that exceptions to a charge be taken 'immediately after the charge is delivered' and that in taking an exception counsel 'shall state distinctly the matter objected to and the ground of objection' is to alert the court to any claims of error while there is still an opportunity for correction, thereby avoiding the economic waste and increased court congestion caused by unnecessary retrials. The same purpose is the basis of our rule of practice requiring that timely objection be made to such action of the court as that here challenged, namely, failing to have the original verdicts read before returning the jury for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tough v. Ives
...and we find no error. Practice Book § 249; Prystash v. Best Medium Publishing Co., 157 Conn. 507, 512, 254 A.2d 872; Towhill v. Kane, 147 Conn. 191, 193, 158 A.2d 251; D'Addario v. American Automobile Ins. Co., 142 Conn. 251, 256, 113 A.2d The plaintiff also claims that the jury should not ......
-
State v. Burke
...Conn. 507, 512, 254 A.2d 872 (1969); Douglass v. 95 Pearl Street Corporation, 157 Conn. 73, 85, 245 A.2d 129 (1968); Towhill v. Kane, 147 Conn. 191, 193, 158 A.2d 251 (1960).4 By way of comparison, the parallel federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3481, states that the failure of the accused to tes......
-
State v. Gerak
...congestion caused by unnecessary retrials. Prystash v. Best Medium Publishing Co., supra, 157 Conn. 512, 254 A.2d 872; Towhill v. Kane,147 Conn. 191, 193, 158 A.2d 251. Our language in State v. Vars, supra, 154 Conn. 271-72, 224 A.2d 744, commenting upon O'Connor v. Ohio, supra, suggests th......
-
Douglass v. 95 Pearl St. Corp.
...purpose of the rule is to alert the court to any claims of error while there is still an opportunity for correction. Towhill v. Kane, 147 Conn. 191, 193, 158 A.2d 251. It was within the discretion of the court to refuse to allow the defendant's additional exceptions to be made at a time oth......