White v. Herler

Supreme Court of Connecticut

White v. Herler

159 A. 654, 114 Conn. 734, 1932 Conn. LEXIS 96

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedApril 12, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 159 A. 654 (White v. Herler) 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

White v. Herler, 159 A. 654, 114 Conn. 734, 1932 Conn. LEXIS 96 (Colo. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Ctteiam.

This is an appeal from the denial of the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff. If the jury believed the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses, as they were entitled to do, they might reasonably have found that the defendant’s car passed a truck, cut over to the left and bore directly down on the plaintiff’s car which was proceeding in an opposite direction on its own right-hand side of the highway, necessitating the plaintiff turning his car sharply to the left to avoid a head-on collision, resulting in his striking the truck. Upon these facts the jury might reasonably have reached the conclusion that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the collision and the resulting injuries and, judging the conduct of the plaintiff in the light of the emergency which confronted him, that he was not guilty of contributory negligence. It is true that the defendant gave a very different account of the way in which the accident happened. But it was for the jury to decide which of the conflicting versions was the true one and it is not the province of this court, as it was not that of the trial court, to overrule their conclusion.

There is no error.

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

Pee Ctteiam.

This is an appeal from the denial of the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff. If the jury believed the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses, as they were entitled to do, they might reasonably have found that the defendant’s car passed a truck, cut over to the left and bore directly down on the plaintiff’s car which was proceeding in an opposite direction on its own right-hand side of the highway, necessitating the plaintiff turning his car sharply to the left to avoid a head-on collision, resulting in his striking the truck. Upon these facts the jury might reasonably have reached the conclusion that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the collision and the resulting injuries and, judging the conduct of the plaintiff in the light of the emergency which confronted him, that he was not guilty of contributory negligence. It is true that the defendant gave a very different account of the way in which the accident happened. But it was for the jury to decide which of the conflicting versions was the true one and it is not the province of this court, as it was not that of the trial court, to overrule their conclusion.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A. 654, 114 Conn. 734, 1932 Conn. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-herler-conn-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack