Wolfe v. Ives

• Decision Date: 14 June 1910
• Parties: WOLFE v. IVES.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

76 A. 526

83 Conn. 174

WOLFE

v. IVES.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 14, 1910.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; George W. Wheeler, Judge.

Action by Aaron Wolfe against John W. Ives to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence of defendant in running his automobile against plaintiff. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Stiles Judson and Harrison Hewitt, for appellant.

Robert C. Stoddard, for appellee.

HALL, C. J. In the forenoon of March 11, 1908, the plaintiff, having alighted from an easterly bound trolley car, which had stopped on the north side of Broad street, in the town of Milford, while crossing the street to his place of business on the south side of the street, was struck by the defendant's automobile going westerly, and was severely injured. The plaintiff was about 50 years of age, and was engaged in the tailoring and clothes pressing business, and at the trial he offered evidence to prove that as results of the accident two of his ribs, his arm, shoulder, hipbone, and nose were broken; that be was confined to the hospital for eight weeks, was compelled to close his tailor shop, and was unable to work until the first of the following December. The plaintiff claimed to have proved that he was in the exercise of due care, and that the accident was the result of the defendant's negligence in these respects, among others: In driving his car at too rapid a rate of speed at the place where plaintiff was crossing the street; in not having his automobile under such control as to be able to stop it before striking the plaintiff; and in not stopping or slowing up his automobile in passing where people were getting on and off a trolley car. The defendant claimed to have shown at the trial that he was not guilty of the alleged acts of negligence, and that the plaintiff's negligence essentially contributed to cause the accident. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,125.

Sixteen alleged errors based upon the charge of the court and rulings upon evidence are assigned in the defendant's appeal. We shall consider those only which he has pursued either in his oral argument or in his brief. The principal complaint of the appellant seems to be that the court failed to charge the jury that the burden rested upon the plaintiff to prove the alleged negligence of the defendant and due care of the plaintiff. The finding states that the jury to whom the case was tried had been in attendance for several weeks, and that each juror had sat in from one to six cases, and had been charged in several negligence eases that the burden rested upon the plaintiff to prove the alleged negligence of the defendant, and that the plaintiffs own negligence did not materially contribute to the injuries complained of. That a trial judge has reasonable ground to believe that the jury from their previous experience in the trial of cases are familiar with the law upon an important question involved in a case on trial would rarely, if ever, justify him in refusing to instruct the jury upon such question, if properly requested to do so. When the jury may not fully understand the rule of law upon a material point in a case on trial, it is generally the duty of the trial judge to instruct them upon such point, and a failure to do so might be a sufficient ground for a new trial, even though there had been no request to charge upon such question. Soper v. Tyler, 73 Conn. 660, 662, 40 Atl. 18.

In the case before us there was no request to charge upon the question of the burden of proof, and the court did not in so many words tell the jury that the burden of prool rested upon the plaintiff upon the questions of the negligence of the defendant and the due care of the plaintiff. The court did, however, in its charge, after reading to the jury the provisions of section 11, c. 221, Pub. Acts 1007, that no person shall operate a motor vehicle in the public highways of this state recklessly or so as to endanger property or the life or limb of any person, and that upon approaching any person walking in the traveled portion of any highway the person operating a motor vehicle shall have the same under control and reduce its speed, use this...