Voronelis v. White Line Bus Corp.
| Decision Date | 12 May 1937 |
| Citation | 123 Conn. 25,192 A. 265 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | VORONELIS v. WHITE LINE BUS CORPORATION et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Alfred C. Baldwin Judge.
Action by Josephine Voronelis, administratrix of the estate of Stanley Zamoyc, deceased, against the White Line Bus Corporation and another to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate, alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. Verdict and judgment for defendant after trial to a jury, and plaintiff appeals.
Error judgment set aside, and new trial ordered.
Samuel E. Friedman, Irwin E. Friedman, and Alexander Harinstein, all of Bridgeport, for appellant.
George N. Foster, of Bridgeport, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN JJ.
The plaintiff's decedent was killed by being run over by a bus owned by the defendant corporation and operated at the time of the accident by the other defendant, William Buckley. The accident occurred on a rainy night. The decedent left a restaurant located at the southwesterly corner of Housatonic avenue and East Washington avenue in Bridgeport, following Chester Floreziak, both intending to take a bus which was approaching on Housatonic avenue from the south. The two men walked southerly on the west side of Housatonic avenue and the last time prior to the accident the deceased was seen, he was at the curb of the sidewalk on Housatonic avenue about 18 feet south from the southerly curb of East Washington avenue. The bus operated by Buckley turned the corner from East Washington avenue to go south on Housatonic avenue. Floreziak, who was crossing the latter street ahead of the deceased, heard a thud and turning saw the deceased under one of the rear wheels of the bus. No witness saw the deceased between the time he was at the curb and the moment when the wheel was passing over him. The plaintiff claimed that after the accident his body lay in the street about 9 feet from the westerly curb. In the complaint it is alleged that the operator of the bus was negligent in several respects. The defendants in their answer denied this and pleaded affirmatively that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. The jury rendered a verdict in their favor, and the plaintiff has appealed.
In her assignments of error the plaintiff seeks numerous corrections and additions to the finding. We repeat what we have so often said that a finding in a case tried to a jury is not a statement of facts which the trial court has found proven, but a narrative of the facts claimed to have been proven by the parties, made for the purpose of presenting any claimed errors in the charge or rulings of the court. Fierberg v. Whitcomb, 119 Conn. 390, 392, 177 A. 135. It serves no useful purpose to seek corrections in the finding as regards nonessential details or facts which do not serve to make clearer the situation as related to the claimed errors. Moreover, in the rare instances where an addition to a finding in a jury case is properly sought, it is not necessary to allege in the assignment of errors, as the appellant has done, that the fact sought to be added was admitted or undisputed, but it is sufficient to state that the party claimed to have proved it and offered evidence reasonably supporting it. In the case before us, the finding as made sufficiently presents the determinative issue and we have no need to consider the corrections sought.
That issue concerns the charge of the court in regard to contributory negligence. The case was a typical one for the application of section 1654c of the Cumulative Supplements to the General Statutes of 1935 which provides: This statute, enacted in 1931, was undoubtedly the result of our decision in Kotler v. Lalley, 112 Conn. 86, 151 A. 433, 435, decided in 1930, in which we held that under the common law of this state, where death was claimed to be due to negligence and there was no direct testimony as to the decedent's conduct, no inference or presumption that he was in the exercise of due care would arise from a natural instinct of self-preservation and avoidance of bodily harm; and where we stated that we had no statutory provision to enforce the " obviously just...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hayes
... ... v. Spallone, 114 Conn. 236, 243, 158 A ... 237; Voronelis v. White Line Bus Corp., 123 Conn ... 25, 27, 192 A. 265. In certain ... ...
-
State v. Hayes
...Mfg. Co., 125 Conn. 705, 711, 8 A.2d 5; Daly Brothers, Inc. v. Spallone, 114 Conn. 236, 243, 158 A. 237; Voronelis v. White Line Bus Corp, 123 Conn. 25, 27, 192 A. 265. In certain instances, where the evidence was such that corrections might have been required, the situation has become acad......
-
Novella v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
...seek corrections in the finding which would not make clearer the situation as related to the claimed errors. Voronelis v. White Line Bus Corporation,123 Conn. 25, 27, 192 A. 265.' Trani v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, supra, 142 Conn. 543, 116 A.2d 168; Szela v. Johnson Motor Lines, In......
-
Cadwell v. Watson.
...the parties, made for the purpose of presenting any claimed errors in the charge or rulings of the court.’ Voronelis v. White Line Bus Corporation, 123 Conn. 25, 27, 192 A. 265, 266. Reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence are proper bases for claims of proof. See Carlson v. Connectic......