Ramadei v. Saccavino

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Ramadei v. Saccavino

190 A.2d 489, 150 Conn. 700

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedMarch 26, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 190 A.2d 489 (Ramadei v. Saccavino) 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

Ramadei v. Saccavino, 190 A.2d 489, 150 Conn. 700 (Colo. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case arises out of the collision of two motor vehicles in a New Haven street intersection controlled by a traffic light. The defendant seeks extensive corrections in the finding made by the trial court on conflicting testimony. No material corrections are warranted. It is axiomatic that the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to evidence are within the sole province of the trier of fact. This court cannot retry the case. Desmarais v. Pinto, 147 Conn. 109, 110, 157 A.2d 596; Zullo v. Zullo, 138 Conn. 712, 715, 89 A.2d 216. The defendant attempts to demonstrate by mathematical calculation the incredibility of the testimony of witnesses to the effect that he drove into the intersection against a red light. He relies [701]*701on factors of time, distance and speed, but these are, at best, approximations which make his calculation too inconclusive to discredit the verbal testimony as a matter of law. See Porcello v. Finnan, 113 Conn. 730, 732, 156 A. 863.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

This case arises out of the collision of two motor vehicles in a New Haven street intersection controlled by a traffic light. The defendant seeks extensive corrections in the finding made by the trial court on conflicting testimony. No material corrections are warranted. It is axiomatic that the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to evidence are within the sole province of the trier of fact. This court cannot retry the case. Desmarais v. Pinto, 147 Conn. 109, 110, 157 A.2d 596; Zullo v. Zullo, 138 Conn. 712, 715, 89 A.2d 216. The defendant attempts to demonstrate by mathematical calculation the incredibility of the testimony of witnesses to the effect that he drove into the intersection against a red light. He relies [701]*701on factors of time, distance and speed, but these are, at best, approximations which make his calculation too inconclusive to discredit the verbal testimony as a matter of law. See Porcello v. Finnan, 113 Conn. 730, 732, 156 A. 863.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.2d 489, 150 Conn. 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramadei-v-saccavino-conn-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack