Citation Numbers: 52 A.2d 861, 133 Conn. 552
Judges: DICKENSON, J.
Filed Date: 4/16/1947
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The sole question in this appeal is whether the trial court was justified in directing a verdict for the defendants because of lack of evidence of negligence on their part.
The facts, which are not disputed, are as follows: A truck being operated by the plaintiff's decedent in an easterly direction on a four-lane highway in the daytime on a dry pavement collided with the defendants' truck which was being driven in the opposite *Page 554 direction. No eyewitnesses to the collision testified, and the plaintiff relied upon the physical situation presented after the collision to sustain her cause of action. The decedent's truck came to rest on the south side of the highway at right angles to it, its rear end off the traveled road, its front end on the south lane and its left front crushed in. The decedent's body lay across the mid-line of the highway. His death from the collision had been instantaneous. No evidence was offered as to the position of the other truck. There were no skid marks on the road. A photograph of the decedent's truck in evidence shows some debris on the south side of the road near it.
The plaintiff's claim is that, as her decedent's truck was on its own side of the road when it came to rest after the collision and as there were no skid marks, the jury reasonably could have found that the truck was to its right of the center line of the highway at the time of impact and that the defendants' truck must, therefore, have been to its left of the center line in violation of the passing statute. General Statutes, Cum. Sup. 1939, 544e. The plaintiff further claims that the factual situation is the same as that in LeBlanc v. Grillo,
While the direction of a verdict is not favored, it is justified if upon the evidence the jury could not reasonably and legally have reached any other conclusion than that embodied in the verdict as rendered; Bernardo v. Hoffman,
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Latham v. Hankey , 117 Conn. 5 ( 1933 )
Bernardo v. Hoffman , 109 Conn. 158 ( 1929 )
Leblanc v. Grillo , 129 Conn. 378 ( 1942 )
Blados v. Blados , 151 Conn. 391 ( 1964 )
Engengro v. New Haven Gas Co. , 152 Conn. 513 ( 1965 )
Kerrigan v. Detroit Steel Corporation , 146 Conn. 658 ( 1959 )
Lurier v. Danbury Bus Corporation , 144 Conn. 544 ( 1957 )
Cruz v. Drezek , 175 Conn. 230 ( 1978 )
Peters v. Billick , 147 Conn. 699 ( 1960 )
Robinson v. Ratcliffe, No. 051051 (Jan. 24, 1991) , 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 933 ( 1991 )
Swift v. My Brother's Place, No. Cv 920065595s (Jun. 12, ... , 14 Conn. L. Rptr. 317 ( 1995 )
Chamberlain v. National Dairy Products Co , 18 Conn. Super. Ct. 317 ( 1953 )
Robinson v. Southern New England Telephone Co. , 140 Conn. 414 ( 1953 )
Baptist v. Shanen , 145 Conn. 605 ( 1958 )