Catricola v. Hayes

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Catricola v. Hayes

157 A. 271, 114 Conn. 716, 1931 Conn. LEXIS 27

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 8, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 157 A. 271 (Catricola v. Hayes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Catricola v. Hayes, 157 A. 271, 114 Conn. 716, 1931 Conn. LEXIS 27 (Colo. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Ctjeiam.

The plaintiff while crossing a street in Stamford was struck by an automobile being driven by the defendant Algieri as the servant and agent of the defendant Hayes. The finding, which cannot be corrected in any material respect, states that before crossing the street the plaintiff looked in the direction from which the automobile was coming and saw it, but that it was so far away that he could reasonably expect to cross in safety. Believing this to be so he continued across the street without looking again until he was within two feet of the further curb when he was struck. He cannot be held to have been guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Porcello v. Finnan, 113 Conn. 730, 156 Atl. 863. The defendant driver admittedly saw the plaintiff, then in the middle of the street, in a position of peril, when he was one hundred feet away, but continued without reducing his speed so that if need arose he could avoid striking him. The conclusion of the trial court that the defendant driver was negligent is one which it might reasonably have reached. In the course of the trial the plaintiff amended his complaint by adding certain allegations which might have enabled him, upon proper proof, to invoke the doctrine of the last clear chance. But his act in so doing did not preclude the trial court from giving judgment for the plaintiff upon the basis it *718 did, his freedom from contributory negligence and the negligence of the defendant driver.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Ctjeiam.

The plaintiff while crossing a street in Stamford was struck by an automobile being driven by the defendant Algieri as the servant and agent of the defendant Hayes. The finding, which cannot be corrected in any material respect, states that before crossing the street the plaintiff looked in the direction from which the automobile was coming and saw it, but that it was so far away that he could reasonably expect to cross in safety. Believing this to be so he continued across the street without looking again until he was within two feet of the further curb when he was struck. He cannot be held to have been guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Porcello v. Finnan, 113 Conn. 730, 156 Atl. 863. The defendant driver admittedly saw the plaintiff, then in the middle of the street, in a position of peril, when he was one hundred feet away, but continued without reducing his speed so that if need arose he could avoid striking him. The conclusion of the trial court that the defendant driver was negligent is one which it might reasonably have reached. In the course of the trial the plaintiff amended his complaint by adding certain allegations which might have enabled him, upon proper proof, to invoke the doctrine of the last clear chance. But his act in so doing did not preclude the trial court from giving judgment for the plaintiff upon the basis it *718 did, his freedom from contributory negligence and the negligence of the defendant driver.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A. 271, 114 Conn. 716, 1931 Conn. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catricola-v-hayes-conn-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack