Upson v. General Baking Co.
| Decision Date | 04 November 1931 |
| Citation | 113 Conn. 787,156 A. 858 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | UPSON v. GENERAL BAKING CO. et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Frederick M. Peasley Judge.
Action by Helen Upson against the General Baking Company and others to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of one of the defendants and the heedless and reckless disregard of the rights of others by the other defendant, and tried to the jury. The court directed a verdict for the defendant the General Baking Company, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff against the defendant Upson, from which he appealed.
No error.
William A. Bree and H. Frederick Day, both of New Haven, for appellant Upson.
Edward S. Pomeranz, S. Polk Waskowitz, and George Miske, all of Hartford, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
The plaintiff was riding as a gratuitous guest in an automobile owned and driven by the defendant Upson, hereafter referred to as the defendant, and sustained injuries by reason of the latter driving off the road in attempting to pass a truck owned by the defendant the General Baking Company. The jury might reasonably have found that the defendant was proceeding at a very rapid rate of speed when about 300 feet behind the truck; that at that time the truck driver put out his hand indicating a turn to the left, slowed his car, and began gradually to make a turn into a driveway: that this signal was called to the defendant's attention by one of his passengers, but he did not slow down nor put on his brakes but instead tried to pass the truck on its left, though there was room to pass it on the right, and shot off the highway that he did not sound his horn until he passed the truck, at which time he was going from 50 to 60 miles an hour; and that he did not slacken the speed of his car for some distance after it left the highway, when it crossed the driveway, jumped a ditch, broke through a fence, knocking down three posts, and came to a stop in a meadow, a total distance of 215 feet. From the evidence we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the jury were not justified in concluding that the defendant was guilty of heedless and reckless disregard of the rights of his passengers (Bordonaro v. Senk, 109 Conn. 428, 147 A. 136), instead of holding that his conduct arose merely from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fly v. Swink
...244, 245, 147 A. 678, or that he was guilty of more than thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or an error of judgment, Upson v. General Baking Co., 113 Conn. 787, 789, 156 A. 858, Schepp v. Trotter, 115 Conn. 183, 185, 160 A. 869, or anything to justify an inference that he was indifferent to the......
-
Fly v. Swink
... ... inadvertence, or an error of judgment, Upson v. General ... Baking Co., 113 Conn. 787, 789, 156 A. 858, Schepp ... v. Trotter, 115 Conn. 183, ... ...
-
Vanderkruik v. Mitchell
... ... or his reckless disregard of the rights of others." ... General Statutes, § 1628. Interpreting the latter phrase ... in accordance with what we conceived to be ... 1, 3, 147 ... A. 263; Silver v. Silver, 108 Conn. 371, 376, 143 A ... 240, 65 A.L.R. 943; Upson v. General Baking Co., 113 ... Conn. 787, 789, 156 A. 858 ... It is ... apparent that ... ...
-
Napier v. Mooneyham
...110 Conn. 169, 147 A. 568; Meyer v. Hart, 110 Conn. 244, 147 A. 678; Grant v. MacLelland, 109 Conn. 517, 147 A. 138; Upson v. General Baking Co., 113 Conn. 787, 156 A. 858; Schepp v. Trotter, 115 Conn. 183, 160 A. 869; Anderson v. Colucci, 116 Conn. 67, 163 A. 610. The same statute has been......