Woodhull v. Connecticut Co.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1924
• Citation: Woodhull v. Connecticut Co., 100 Conn. 361, 124 A. 42 (Conn. 1924)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: WOODHULL v. CONNECTICUT CO.

124 A. 42

100 Conn. 361

WOODHULL v. CONNECTICUT CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 1, 1924

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Isaac Wolfe, Judge.

Action by James E. Woodhull against the Connecticut Company. Verdict for the plaintiff, which the court on motion set aside, and appeal by plaintiff. Error, and cause remanded.

An automobile driver stopped and looked, but did not see an approaching trolley car going 30 miles an hour over 300 feet away. Hearing no warning, he started to cross the street at an average speed of 3 miles an hour, and because of the torn-up roadway he did not look again, and was struck by the car. Held, that the question of contributory negligence was for the jury.

William H. Comlay, of Bridgeport, for appellant.

Seth W. Baldwin, of New Haven, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and BEACH, CURTIS KEELER, and KELLOGG, JJ.

WHEELER, C.J.

The jury might, by giving the most favorable construction to the plaintiff's claims that the evidence would reasonably admit of, have found these to be the essential facts:

The accident occurred at the intersection of Fairfield avenue and Norman street, Bridgeport, through the trolley car of the defendant colliding with the automobile of the plaintiff. Fairfield avenue is a muchtraveled thoroughfare in this location, and runs east and west; Norman street, north and south. The defendant's two trolley tracks were located in the center of Fairfield avenue, the westbound track being the the most northerly and the east-bound the most southerly. The wood block pavement on this avenue from a point 2 feet from the north side of the west-bound track to the north curb had been taken up and a loose planking laid over the avenue from Norman street. Travel up and down this highway passed over the space upon and between the railroad tracks and 2 feet on either side thereof at the time of the accident. From the north curb of this avenue to the center line of the two tracks is about 17 feet; from the northerly line of the sidewalk to the curb is about 14 feet. From the northerly rail to the center line of the two tracks is 7 feet and 4 inches, and the space covered by the two tracks and 2 feet on either side is 18 feet and 8 inches. On October 30, 1922, at about 5:15 p. m. the plaintiff was traveling south on Norman street in his automobile, and brought it practically to a stop just at the north line of the sidewalk on the north side of Fairfield avenue, then looked in either direction up and down the avenue, and, seeing nothing approaching, and no indication that it was not safe for him to cross the street and hearing no warning of an approaching trolley car, he started to cross the avenue, reaching before the collision a speed of 5 to 7 miles an hour. The only obstruction at the point where he looked to his view to the west were some trees and a post; beyond these and at the curb the tracks to the west were clear for 1,000 feet west of Norman street. The plaintiff did not look again as he proceeded over the distance of about 32 feet, his attention being taken up in driving his car over the loose planking. The plaintiff knew the location and knew that trolley cars frequently passed and repassed this point. The plaintiff's average speed from the point where he practically came to a stop until the collision did not exceed 3 miles an hour. The plaintiff had passed over the west-bound track, and was upon the east-bound track when the defendant's trolley car struck the automobile in about its middle. The plaintiff did not see or hear the approaching trolley until it was within 10 or 15 feet of him. No question arises as to the negligence of the defendant as charged, so that we omit from this statement facts which tend to show this except when relevant to the issue of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The trolley car was traveling at a speed of 30 miles an hour, and at the time the plaintiff put his automobile into first speed the trolley car was over 300 feet west of Norman street. The plaintiff's average speed across this avenue did not exceed 3 miles an hour. The sun set at 4:42 p. m. on this day, the lights in the trolley and upon the automobile were lighted, but the headlight on the trolley car was not lighted. It was not dark, but approaching twilight.

The practical question is whether in the exercise of reasonable care the plaintiff at about the northerly line of the north sidewalk, not seeing an approaching car within 300 feet of the west line of Norman street, could drive across Fairfield avenue and over defendant's trolley tracks without again looking to the west for an approaching car at about the time he passed over the curb, and in time to have stopped his automobile and thus avoided the collision. In such a situation the issue of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff cannot be resolved without holding accurately in mind the respective duties of the plaintiff, driver of the automobile, and the motorman of the approaching car. Each must exercise reasonable care in the light of the circumstances. The motorman must have his car under reasonable control, operate it with...