Hotchkiss v. Barnhart

Connecticut Appellate Court

Hotchkiss v. Barnhart

476 A.2d 638, 2 Conn. App. 164, 1984 Conn. App. LEXIS 619

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 6, 1984

Docket(2089)

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 476 A.2d 638 (Hotchkiss v. Barnhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hotchkiss v. Barnhart, 476 A.2d 638, 2 Conn. App. 164, 1984 Conn. App. LEXIS 619 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment by the court in favor of the defendant in a negligence action arising out of an automobile accident at a highway intersection. The court found that the plaintiff was negligent in failing to yield the right of way when making a left hand turn thereby violating General Statutes § 14-242 (e). From the judgment, the plaintiff appeals. 1

The critical issue at the trial was whether the defendant had proceeded far enough into the intersection to constitute an “immediate hazard” within the meaning of General Statutes § 14-242 (e). The court found that the defendant had so proceeded, thereby obligating the plaintiff to yield the right of way to the defendant.

In a case of this type, the credibility of witnesses is of particular significance. It is axiomatic that it is within the province of the trial court to assess that credibility. Gallicchio Bros., Inc. v. C & S Oil Co., 191 Conn. *165 104, 109, 463 A.2d 600 (1983). The trial court is in the best position to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses and parties, which is not reflected in a printed record. Lupien v. Lupien, 192 Conn. 443, 445, 472 A.2d 18 (1984). This court will not reject a factual finding unless it is clearly erroneous. Practice Book § 3060D; Lupien v. Lupien, supra. There is nothing in the record before us which indicates that the factual findings of the trial court were clearly erroneous.

There is no error.

1

This appeal was originally filed in the Appellate Session of the Superior Court. Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 1983, No. 83-29, § 3 (c).

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment by the court in favor of the defendant in a negligence action arising out of an automobile accident at a highway intersection. The court found that the plaintiff was negligent in failing to yield the right of way when making a left hand turn thereby violating General Statutes § 14-242 (e). From the judgment, the plaintiff appeals. 1

The critical issue at the trial was whether the defendant had proceeded far enough into the intersection to constitute an “immediate hazard” within the meaning of General Statutes § 14-242 (e). The court found that the defendant had so proceeded, thereby obligating the plaintiff to yield the right of way to the defendant.

In a case of this type, the credibility of witnesses is of particular significance. It is axiomatic that it is within the province of the trial court to assess that credibility. Gallicchio Bros., Inc. v. C & S Oil Co., 191 Conn. *165 104, 109, 463 A.2d 600 (1983). The trial court is in the best position to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses and parties, which is not reflected in a printed record. Lupien v. Lupien, 192 Conn. 443, 445, 472 A.2d 18 (1984). This court will not reject a factual finding unless it is clearly erroneous. Practice Book § 3060D; Lupien v. Lupien, supra. There is nothing in the record before us which indicates that the factual findings of the trial court were clearly erroneous.

There is no error.

1

This appeal was originally filed in the Appellate Session of the Superior Court. Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 1983, No. 83-29, § 3 (c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 A.2d 638, 2 Conn. App. 164, 1984 Conn. App. LEXIS 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hotchkiss-v-barnhart-connappct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack