Crown v. Chichester

Connecticut Superior Court

Crown v. Chichester

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 129, 6 Conn. Supp. 129, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 72

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 17, 1938

DocketFile #53344

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 129 (Crown v. Chichester) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crown v. Chichester, 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 129, 6 Conn. Supp. 129, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 72 (Colo. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

Orange Street in New Haven runs north and south and is intersected by Trumbull Street, which runs east and west.

On February 10, 1937 at about 11:15 p.m., the plaintiff attempted to cross Orange Street from the east side to the west side thereof at its intersection with Trumbull Street. The defendant was driving his automobile south on the west side of Orange Street at a speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour approaching Trumbull Street. The plaintiff testifies that before leaving the curb, he looked both north and south and saw no approaching traffic in either direction. Three automobiles passed north on the east side of Orange Street. The plaintiff crossed the easterly half of Orange Street after the third of these automobiles had passed north. The plaintiff testifies that, when he was one-third or one-half of the distance across Orange Street, he looked north and saw two lights of an ap *130 preaching automobile, but thought it was a block away. The Court finds that the plaintiff came from behind the last of the three automobiles going north and stepped right into the path of the defendant’s automobile coming south. The auto' mobiles travelling north concealed the plaintiff from the de' fendant, until it was too late to avoid striking the plaintiff. The defendant then threw on his brakes and turned his auto' mobile to the left and stopped within a very few feet; but the plaintiff was struck by the right mudguard ,of the defend' ant’s automobile.

The Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence any of the allegations of negligence of the defendant appearing in the complaint. The Court finds that the plaintiff was guilty of contributo^ neg' ligence that was a proximate cause of his injuries.

The Court in this memorandum of decision refrains from making any more specific finding of facts, thus avoiding the necessity at this time of setting forth in detail any decision raising any question of veracity of witnesses.

Judgment may be entered in favor of the defendant.

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

FOSTER, J.

Orange Street in New Haven runs north and south and is intersected by Trumbull Street, which runs east and west.

On February 10, 1937 at about 11:15 p.m., the plaintiff attempted to cross Orange Street from the east side to the west side thereof at its intersection with Trumbull Street. The defendant was driving his automobile south on the west side of Orange Street at a speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour approaching Trumbull Street. The plaintiff testifies that before leaving the curb, he looked both north and south and saw no approaching traffic in either direction. Three automobiles passed north on the east side of Orange Street. The plaintiff crossed the easterly half of Orange Street after the third of these automobiles had passed north. The plaintiff testifies that, when he was one-third or one-half of the distance across Orange Street, he looked north and saw two lights of an ap *130 preaching automobile, but thought it was a block away. The Court finds that the plaintiff came from behind the last of the three automobiles going north and stepped right into the path of the defendant’s automobile coming south. The auto' mobiles travelling north concealed the plaintiff from the de' fendant, until it was too late to avoid striking the plaintiff. The defendant then threw on his brakes and turned his auto' mobile to the left and stopped within a very few feet; but the plaintiff was struck by the right mudguard ,of the defend' ant’s automobile.

The Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence any of the allegations of negligence of the defendant appearing in the complaint. The Court finds that the plaintiff was guilty of contributo^ neg' ligence that was a proximate cause of his injuries.

The Court in this memorandum of decision refrains from making any more specific finding of facts, thus avoiding the necessity at this time of setting forth in detail any decision raising any question of veracity of witnesses.

Judgment may be entered in favor of the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 129, 6 Conn. Supp. 129, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crown-v-chichester-connsuperct-1938.