Shearer v. Lewis

Connecticut Superior Court

Shearer v. Lewis

1 Conn. Super. Ct. 32, 1 Conn. Supp. 32, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 15

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 19, 1935

DocketFile # 50080

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Conn. Super. Ct. 32 (Shearer v. Lewis) 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

Shearer v. Lewis, 1 Conn. Super. Ct. 32, 1 Conn. Supp. 32, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 15 (Colo. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

JENNINGS, J.

This is the typical intersection case. The plaintiff had the right of way. The negligence of the defend' ant is not seriously disputed. The only question is whether the plaintiff proved his own due care.

The testimony of the plaintiff as to time and distance was unsatisfactory even to himself. It seemed to me that this was due to the fact that he was a poor judge of those matters rather than to an intention to prevaricate. On the whole testimony, I find that the plaintiff glanced to his left when a reasonable distance from the intersection but that his main care was to see that nothing was coming from his right. Since, under the testimony as to distances given by the engh neer, there was probably considerably less than two seconds available for effective observation, I find that he has main' tained his burden and is entitled to judgment.

The estimate with reference to the depreciation on the car was low. Any new car ruri 4,000 miles over a period of four months will depreciate more than $190. Judgment may enter for the plaintiff for $1,000.

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

JENNINGS, J.

This is the typical intersection case. The plaintiff had the right of way. The negligence of the defend' ant is not seriously disputed. The only question is whether the plaintiff proved his own due care.

The testimony of the plaintiff as to time and distance was unsatisfactory even to himself. It seemed to me that this was due to the fact that he was a poor judge of those matters rather than to an intention to prevaricate. On the whole testimony, I find that the plaintiff glanced to his left when a reasonable distance from the intersection but that his main care was to see that nothing was coming from his right. Since, under the testimony as to distances given by the engh neer, there was probably considerably less than two seconds available for effective observation, I find that he has main' tained his burden and is entitled to judgment.

The estimate with reference to the depreciation on the car was low. Any new car ruri 4,000 miles over a period of four months will depreciate more than $190. Judgment may enter for the plaintiff for $1,000.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Conn. Super. Ct. 32, 1 Conn. Supp. 32, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shearer-v-lewis-connsuperct-1935.