Penta v. Winternitz

Connecticut Superior Court

Penta v. Winternitz

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 212, 5 Conn. Supp. 212, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 107

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 28, 1937

DocketFile #50367

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 212 (Penta v. Winternitz) 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

Penta v. Winternitz, 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 212, 5 Conn. Supp. 212, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 107 (Colo. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

QUINLAN, J.

The accident from which this case arose occurred at Temple and Grove Streets. The signal light was not in operation. It was early in the morning. The plaintiff had just finished work. The defendant, and his companions, was returning from a social time at the Hotel Taft. The *213 plaintiff’s car arrived at the intersection first. He had a right to assume the defendant operator would grant .him his right of way, he, of course, to act with due care. This, on reflection, I think he did. He saw the defendant’s car about 150 feet to his left. The physical evidence, photos of defendant’s car, show a mark on the right fender, which undoubtedly first struck plaintiff's car. The skid marks for 25 feet south of Grove Street on Temple Street indicate knowledge of the presence of the plaintiff’s car at the intersection and either a failure to concede the right of way or a failure to have the car under such control that it might be stopped, or its speed applied to the circumstances existing.

Plaintiff was not seriously injured. He had a pain in the sacroiliac region, a swollen left ankle and injuries to neck and knee, and had his back strapped. His special damage was $144.

Judgment for plaintiff for $650.

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

QUINLAN, J.

The accident from which this case arose occurred at Temple and Grove Streets. The signal light was not in operation. It was early in the morning. The plaintiff had just finished work. The defendant, and his companions, was returning from a social time at the Hotel Taft. The *213 plaintiff’s car arrived at the intersection first. He had a right to assume the defendant operator would grant .him his right of way, he, of course, to act with due care. This, on reflection, I think he did. He saw the defendant’s car about 150 feet to his left. The physical evidence, photos of defendant’s car, show a mark on the right fender, which undoubtedly first struck plaintiff's car. The skid marks for 25 feet south of Grove Street on Temple Street indicate knowledge of the presence of the plaintiff’s car at the intersection and either a failure to concede the right of way or a failure to have the car under such control that it might be stopped, or its speed applied to the circumstances existing.

Plaintiff was not seriously injured. He had a pain in the sacroiliac region, a swollen left ankle and injuries to neck and knee, and had his back strapped. His special damage was $144.

Judgment for plaintiff for $650.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 212, 5 Conn. Supp. 212, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penta-v-winternitz-connsuperct-1937.