Prisk v. State

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Prisk v. State

74 A.2d 462, 137 Conn. 35, 1950 Conn. LEXIS 179

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJune 12, 1950

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 A.2d 462 (Prisk v. State) 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

Prisk v. State, 74 A.2d 462, 137 Conn. 35, 1950 Conn. LEXIS 179 (Colo. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Jennings, J.

The plaintiff, a pedestrian, was injured when he was run into by an automobile on Main Street in East Hartford about 1 a. m. on February 2, 1947. As the case was tried, the principal issue was whether the plaintiff was struck by a state car driven by a state policeman or by another, unidentified car. The plaintiff admits that he cannot recover unless the finding is materially corrected. In spite of his elaborate *36 attack thereon, there was ample evidence to support the vital finding that the defendants’ vehicle was at no time in contact with the plaintiff. This finding supports the court’s conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that the défendant driver was negligent.

The only ruling assigned as error was the admission of a question addressed to a police officer inquiring as to the condition of sobriety of an eyewitness to the accident. The question was claimed to affect the latter’s credibility. It was admissible for that purpose. Olstad v. Fahse, 204 Minn. 118, 120, 282 N. W. 694; Willis v. State, 43 Neb. 102, 109, 61 N. W. 254; see Holcomb v. Holcomb, 28 Conn. 177, 181.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Jennings, J.

The plaintiff, a pedestrian, was injured when he was run into by an automobile on Main Street in East Hartford about 1 a. m. on February 2, 1947. As the case was tried, the principal issue was whether the plaintiff was struck by a state car driven by a state policeman or by another, unidentified car. The plaintiff admits that he cannot recover unless the finding is materially corrected. In spite of his elaborate *36 attack thereon, there was ample evidence to support the vital finding that the defendants’ vehicle was at no time in contact with the plaintiff. This finding supports the court’s conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that the défendant driver was negligent.

The only ruling assigned as error was the admission of a question addressed to a police officer inquiring as to the condition of sobriety of an eyewitness to the accident. The question was claimed to affect the latter’s credibility. It was admissible for that purpose. Olstad v. Fahse, 204 Minn. 118, 120, 282 N. W. 694; Willis v. State, 43 Neb. 102, 109, 61 N. W. 254; see Holcomb v. Holcomb, 28 Conn. 177, 181.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.2d 462, 137 Conn. 35, 1950 Conn. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prisk-v-state-conn-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack