Porto v. Consolidated Motor Lines, Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Porto v. Consolidated Motor Lines, Inc.

169 A. 48, 117 Conn. 681, 1933 Conn. LEXIS 226

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedNovember 7, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 169 A. 48 (Porto v. Consolidated Motor Lines, Inc.) 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

Porto v. Consolidated Motor Lines, Inc., 169 A. 48, 117 Conn. 681, 1933 Conn. LEXIS 226 (Colo. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for injuries done to a truck owned by her when it was struck by a truck of the defendant, and from a judgment for the latter she has appealed. The accident occurred in the nighttime when it was very dark, and the conclusion of the trial court that the driver of the plaintiff’s truck was negligent in leaving it parked upon the highway without proper lights was supported by the subordinate facts, which cannot be corrected in any way material to this issue. The substantial claim of the plaintiff is that, despite such negligence, the defendant was liable under the last clear chance doctrine. The driver of the defendant’s truck, when he was about fifty feet away, saw a large dark object with a light box or trunk showing on or in it in the highway in front of him. The highway at this point had four lanes of traffic, the *682 parked truck was in the one farthest to the right and the driver of the defendant’s truck was proceeding in the same lane. He could have stopped before he reached the parked truck. Instead, he turned to the left to pass it, the truck he was driving did pass, but a trailer behind it struck the left corner of the tailboard of the plaintiff’s truck. There was no traffic coming in the opposite direction, and the driver of the defendant’s, truck might have turned further to the left and thus have avoided the collision. He was trying, however, to keep to the right of the center line of the highway. His conduct in attempting to pass the plaintiff’s truck instead of stopping before reaching it was an entirely proper course for him to take. In view of the darkness, the absence of lights on the plaintiff’s truck and the proper effort of the driver of the defendant’s truck to keep to the right side of the highway, we cannot say that, as matter of law, his error in judgment in failing to turn a little further to the left amounted to negligence; Carney v. Concord Street Ry. Co., 72 N. H. 364, 372, 57 Atl. 218; McClain v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 116 N. Y. 459, 22 N. E. 1062; Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. Montgomery, 165 Ark. 560, 563, 265 S. W. 365; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. O’Connor, 119 Ill. 586, 597, 9 N. E. 263; and the conclusion of the trial court that he was not negligent must stand.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for injuries done to a truck owned by her when it was struck by a truck of the defendant, and from a judgment for the latter she has appealed. The accident occurred in the nighttime when it was very dark, and the conclusion of the trial court that the driver of the plaintiff’s truck was negligent in leaving it parked upon the highway without proper lights was supported by the subordinate facts, which cannot be corrected in any way material to this issue. The substantial claim of the plaintiff is that, despite such negligence, the defendant was liable under the last clear chance doctrine. The driver of the defendant’s truck, when he was about fifty feet away, saw a large dark object with a light box or trunk showing on or in it in the highway in front of him. The highway at this point had four lanes of traffic, the *682 parked truck was in the one farthest to the right and the driver of the defendant’s truck was proceeding in the same lane. He could have stopped before he reached the parked truck. Instead, he turned to the left to pass it, the truck he was driving did pass, but a trailer behind it struck the left corner of the tailboard of the plaintiff’s truck. There was no traffic coming in the opposite direction, and the driver of the defendant’s, truck might have turned further to the left and thus have avoided the collision. He was trying, however, to keep to the right of the center line of the highway. His conduct in attempting to pass the plaintiff’s truck instead of stopping before reaching it was an entirely proper course for him to take. In view of the darkness, the absence of lights on the plaintiff’s truck and the proper effort of the driver of the defendant’s truck to keep to the right side of the highway, we cannot say that, as matter of law, his error in judgment in failing to turn a little further to the left amounted to negligence; Carney v. Concord Street Ry. Co., 72 N. H. 364, 372, 57 Atl. 218; McClain v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 116 N. Y. 459, 22 N. E. 1062; Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. Montgomery, 165 Ark. 560, 563, 265 S. W. 365; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. O’Connor, 119 Ill. 586, 597, 9 N. E. 263; and the conclusion of the trial court that he was not negligent must stand.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A. 48, 117 Conn. 681, 1933 Conn. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porto-v-consolidated-motor-lines-inc-conn-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack