Zenuk v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 23 February 1932 |
| Citation | 114 Conn. 383,158 A. 910 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | ZENUK v. JOHNSON. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Frederick M. Peasley Judge.
Action by Klementy Zenuk, alias Clem Zenuk, against David Johnson to recover damages for injuries claimed to have been caused by the negligent operation of an automobile. The case was tried to the jury. Verdict and judgment were for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Error and new trial ordered.
Milton Nahum and Julius Apter, both of Hartford, for appellant.
Joseph F. Berry, of Hartford, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS and AVERY JJ.
A verdict was returned by the jury, after the trial of this case, in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff has appealed, claiming that the court erred in its instructions to the jury, and in a ruling on evidence.
At the trial, the plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove, and claimed to have proved, the following facts: On the morning of September 28, 1930, shortly after midnight, the plaintiff was leading a large heavy horse in a northerly direction upon the shoulder of the road on Bloomfield avenue in the town of Bloomfield. The road runs northerly and southerly, and the traveled part is composed of macadam, black in color, about 25 feet in width, extending slightly over on the shoulders which are of lighter material and about five feet in width. In the center of the road is a single trolley track about 5 feet wide. On the west side of the road, there are a series of street lights, each of 125 watts and 300 feet apart. For a distance of about 500 feet south of the point of the accident, the highway runs in a straight line with nothing to obstruct a driver's vision, and there were no obstructions in the road at the time of the accident. The night was clear, the ground dry, and there was no fog. The visibility was good, due to the street lights and the clear night. There was no traffic from either direction at the time of the accident. The defendant was operating a Ford touring car northerly upon this highway, in the same direction as the plaintiff was leading the horse, and was traveling at a fast rate of speed. When the plaintiff saw the defendant approaching, he pulled his horse closer to the extreme right-hand part of the shoulder of the road. The defendant did not see the plaintiff or his horse until he was fifty feet from them. He gave no warning or signal of his approach and did not sound his horn. He did not swerve his car after he saw the plaintiff or apply his brakes, and struck the horse at a point on the shoulder of the road. The horse was picked up by the radiator of defendant's car and carried a distance of 25 feet, thrown against a pole standing on the shoulder of the road, and instantly killed. The point of collision was approximately 125 feet south of a street light on the west side of the road, and about 175 feet north of another street light on the same side. The plaintiff was carrying no light at the time, and claimed he was not intoxicated.
The defendant offered evidence to prove, and claimed that he had proved, these facts: He was driving his automobile at a reasonable rate of speed under the circumstances, about 35 miles an hour. He had the car under control and was proceeding northerly with the left wheels of the car 3 feet east of the easterly trolley rail. The plaintiff was dressed in dark clothes, and the horse was dark in color. When the defendant first saw the plaintiff, the latter was about 30 to 50 feet distant, and was walking along the highway in a northerly direction, just east of the easterly trolley rail. He was leading the horse and carried no light. The defendant sounded no horn, but attempted to stop and applied his brakes, and, as soon as he could see the plaintiff and horse, swerved to the left, but was too late to avoid them. The right front part of defendant's car struck the horse, lifted him onto the hood, and carried him a distance of 20 feet, when the horse fell to the ground on the macadam portion of the highway, rolled over, and scraped the macadam and shoulder with his hoofs before he came to rest, just prior to the time he died. The defendant stopped his car about 8 feet north of the point where the horse fell, and its left wheels were near the easterly trolley rail. The horse was still living when he fell to the pavement and kept on struggling, as a result of which he gradually moved further to the right of the point where he fell. Defendant's car was equipped with headlights of sufficient power, in accordance with the statute, but he did not see the horse or man until the automobile had reached a distance of about 50 feet from them. The defendant claimed, when he saw the plaintiff, the distance was so short that using his best efforts he could not avoid the collision. The defendant further offered evidence tending to show that the plaintiff had been drinking prior to the time of the collision.
Both parties claim to have proved that the headlights upon the automobile conformed to the statutory requirement (Gen. St § 1598) which provided: " Whenever there shall not be sufficient light within the limits of the traveled portion of the highway to make all vehicles, persons or objects clearly visible within a distance of at least...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffin v. Parker
...Wilkins, 145 Conn. 34, 40, 138 A.2d 705 (1958); see also Fitzhugh v. Bushnell, 118 Conn. 677, 680, 174 A. 80 (1934); Zenuk v. Johnson, 114 Conn. 383, 388, 158 A. 910 (1932). It is difficult to discern any meaningful distinction between the use in a subsequent civil case of a plea of guilty ......
-
McNamee v. Woodbury Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
...supervening negligence, and last clear chance: Omiccioli v. Connecticut Co., 96 Conn. 716, 115 A. 475 (1921); Zenuk v. Johnson, 114 Conn. 383, 158 A. 910 (1932); Waselik v. Ferrie Construction Co., 114 Conn. 85, 157 A. 642 (1931); Correnti v. Catino, supra, 115 Conn. 222, 160 A. In Bottaro ......
-
Correnti v. Catino
... ... Mezzi v. Taylor, supra; Russell v ... Vergason, 95 Conn. 431, 434, 111 A. 625; Schmeiske ... v. Laubin, 109 Conn. 206, 211, 145 A. 890; Zenuk v ... Johnson, 114 Conn. 383, 158 A. 910. It is also to be ... remembered that the application of the doctrine presupposes ... that the plaintiff ... ...
-
Casalo v. Claro
...89, 139 A.2d 58; Graham v. Wilkins, 145 Conn. 34, 40, 138 A.2d 705; Fitzhugh v. Bushnell, 118 Conn. 677, 680, 174 A. 80; Zenuk v. Johnson, 114 Conn. 383, 388, 158 A. 910. A conviction after trial on a plea of not guilty is not, of course, an admission, either verbal or by conduct. Page v. P......