Travis v. Balfour

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Travis v. Balfour

161 A. 521, 115 Conn. 711, 1932 Conn. LEXIS 202

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJuly 19, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 A. 521 (Travis v. Balfour) 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

Travis v. Balfour, 161 A. 521, 115 Conn. 711, 1932 Conn. LEXIS 202 (Colo. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s decedent was standing on the sidewalk near the corner of Broad and Grand Streets in Hartford when the automobiles of the two defendants collided within the intersection of the streets, with the result that the car of the defendant Balfour was driven upon the sidewalk and struck and killed the decedent. Both defendants have appealed from the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict against them, each claiming that the other’s negligence was the sole cause of the death of the decedent. Balfour was going south on Broad Street, approaching the intersection upon the right of the defendant Weir, *712 who was driving west on Grand Street. The jury might reasonably have found that the two cars were approaching the intersection at approximately the same time. If so, Balfour had the right of way and the conclusion would almost necessarily follow that Weir was negligent in not yielding it, and that this negligence was a proximate cause of the death of the decedent. The jury might also have found that Balfour was approaching the intersection at a speed of thirty-five to forty miles an hour, did not slow down as he came to it, did not sound his horn, and did not look to see if any car was approaching from his left. They might also have found that, while cars could proceed on Broad Street south of Grand, there was, on the south side of the intersection, a sign “street closed,” part way across the street, and a smaller sign “detour.” Under these circumstances they could have reasonably concluded that, while Balfour had the right of way, he did not use that care which, even in such á situation, it was his duty to use and that he was negligent, and his negligence was also a proximate cause of the death of the decedent. Leete v. Griswold Post, 114 Conn. 400, 407, 158 Atl. 919; Rose v. Campitello, 114 Conn. 637, 640, 159 Atl. 887; Whipple v. Fardig, 112 Conn. 402, 152 Atl. 397.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s decedent was standing on the sidewalk near the corner of Broad and Grand Streets in Hartford when the automobiles of the two defendants collided within the intersection of the streets, with the result that the car of the defendant Balfour was driven upon the sidewalk and struck and killed the decedent. Both defendants have appealed from the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict against them, each claiming that the other’s negligence was the sole cause of the death of the decedent. Balfour was going south on Broad Street, approaching the intersection upon the right of the defendant Weir, *712 who was driving west on Grand Street. The jury might reasonably have found that the two cars were approaching the intersection at approximately the same time. If so, Balfour had the right of way and the conclusion would almost necessarily follow that Weir was negligent in not yielding it, and that this negligence was a proximate cause of the death of the decedent. The jury might also have found that Balfour was approaching the intersection at a speed of thirty-five to forty miles an hour, did not slow down as he came to it, did not sound his horn, and did not look to see if any car was approaching from his left. They might also have found that, while cars could proceed on Broad Street south of Grand, there was, on the south side of the intersection, a sign “street closed,” part way across the street, and a smaller sign “detour.” Under these circumstances they could have reasonably concluded that, while Balfour had the right of way, he did not use that care which, even in such á situation, it was his duty to use and that he was negligent, and his negligence was also a proximate cause of the death of the decedent. Leete v. Griswold Post, 114 Conn. 400, 407, 158 Atl. 919; Rose v. Campitello, 114 Conn. 637, 640, 159 Atl. 887; Whipple v. Fardig, 112 Conn. 402, 152 Atl. 397.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A. 521, 115 Conn. 711, 1932 Conn. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travis-v-balfour-conn-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack