Case ID: conn_92/html/0233-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael Casey vs. The Connecticut Company.
    Third Judicial District, Bridgeport,
    October Term, 1917.
    Prentice, C. J., Roraback, Wheeler, Beach and Shumway, Js.
    In crossing a street-railway track one is bound to make a reasonable use of his faculties to avoid being injured.
    In the present case the plaintiff, while crossing an empty quiet street in the middle of a block about 10:30 o’clock on a fair evening, stepped in front of a rapidly moving trolley-car and was. struck and injured. Held that the trial court was justified in setting aside a verdict in his favor.
    Argued October 23d —
    decided December 15th, 1917.
    Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the jury before Greene, J.; verdict for the plaintiff for $2,000, which the trial court, upon motion, set aside as against the evidence, and appeal by the plaintiff.
    
      No error.
    
    
      Dennis W. Coleman, for the appellant (plaintiff).
    
      Joseph F. Berry, for the appellee (defendant).
   Per Curiam.

An examination of the evidence satisfies us that the court did not err in setting aside the verdict on the ground that the plaintiff failed to make reasonable use of his faculties in stepping in front of a rapidly moving. trolley-car in an empty quiet street about 10:30 on a fair evening. Unless the car was already in sight when the plaintiff stepped off the sidewalk, it must have been running at headlong speed until within a few feet of the plaintiff, and it hardly needs the evidence before us to prove that under the conditions stated a trolley-car, although no signal is given, makes noise enough to attract the attention of a reasonably prudent person of good hearing who is about to cross the track diagonally in the middle of a block.

There is no evidence that the motorman had an opportunity to avoid the collision after it became apparent that the plaintiff was in a position of peril from which he was making no effort to escape.

There is no error.