Pasko v. Southern New England Telephone Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Pasko v. Southern New England Telephone Co.

12 Conn. Super. Ct. 377, 12 Conn. Supp. 377, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 20

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 14, 1944

DocketFile 63608

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Conn. Super. Ct. 377 (Pasko v. Southern New England Telephone Co.) 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

Pasko v. Southern New England Telephone Co., 12 Conn. Super. Ct. 377, 12 Conn. Supp. 377, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 20 (Colo. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

WYNNE, J.

There is no room for doubt that the accident in question was directly due to the sudden and abrupt stop of defendant’s truck. Was the driver in any way negligent? The principles of law which plaintiff’s counsel cited with painstaking care are altogether sound. Not one of them, however, is exactly applicable to the factual situation disclosed here. Defendant’s driver involuntarily reacted, instinctively, as any ordinary reasonably prudent driver would have acted. A stone was hurled against his windshield. It was a startling experience. In that instant of time a person’s action would be to turn right and stop. This is exactly what the driver did and the stop was not unduly precipitous.

Unfortunately it was quite unexpected so far as plaintiff’s driver was concerned. Of course he had the distance between his vehicle plus the space covered by defendant’s driver in his stop. And yet the court cannot find that he was guilty of contributory negligence. In short the court is satisfied that each of the drivers, when tested by the standard the law immutably fixes, was acting without negligence.

Only by a realistic approach is it possible to weigh and to evaluate human behavior.

On the ground indicated judgment is entered for the defendant.

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

WYNNE, J.

There is no room for doubt that the accident in question was directly due to the sudden and abrupt stop of defendant’s truck. Was the driver in any way negligent? The principles of law which plaintiff’s counsel cited with painstaking care are altogether sound. Not one of them, however, is exactly applicable to the factual situation disclosed here. Defendant’s driver involuntarily reacted, instinctively, as any ordinary reasonably prudent driver would have acted. A stone was hurled against his windshield. It was a startling experience. In that instant of time a person’s action would be to turn right and stop. This is exactly what the driver did and the stop was not unduly precipitous.

Unfortunately it was quite unexpected so far as plaintiff’s driver was concerned. Of course he had the distance between his vehicle plus the space covered by defendant’s driver in his stop. And yet the court cannot find that he was guilty of contributory negligence. In short the court is satisfied that each of the drivers, when tested by the standard the law immutably fixes, was acting without negligence.

Only by a realistic approach is it possible to weigh and to evaluate human behavior.

On the ground indicated judgment is entered for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Conn. Super. Ct. 377, 12 Conn. Supp. 377, 1944 Conn. Super. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pasko-v-southern-new-england-telephone-co-connsuperct-1944.