Norwich bulletin., 1915-05-07
DECISION FOR DEFENDANT
 IN AUTOMOBILE SUIT.
Judge Greene Decides Asainst Mrs.
 Paulsen's Claim for Damages.


 Judge Gardiner Greene rendered a in the suit of Mrs. Augusta L. Paul sen of this city against Albert C.. Greene of Griswold, whom she sued for $3,000 damages for injuries she was in collision with MT. Greene's au- tomobile at the corner of West Main street and Falls avenue.
 The case was tried before Judge Greene last week, with Attorneys Thomas J. Kelly and Allyn L. Brown appearing for the plaintiff and Telley E. Babcock for the defendant In his memorandum of decision. Judge Greene says that the plaintiff the negligence of the defendant, espe- cially in failing to blow his horn, and in driving at an unreasonable speed under the circumstances.
 The evidence is very conflicting. The plaintiffs claim is that there was of use, and that when plaintiff s daughter saw the auto, it was upon them, and the daughter had just time to jump back out of its reach, while and was at once knocked down. This position is supported by the plaintiff and her daughter and three apparently disinterested witnesses, Barber, Beckwith and Savage. Bar Der was 100 feet or more to the south west of south, and Beckwith opposite and behind the auto as it entered Falls avenue.
 The defendant claims that he blew his horn when approaching the coIner and again when turning; that plaintiff started to cross over Falls avenue on the crosswalk a little ahead of her daughter; that he had a clear way when he started on to the walk with the plaintiff a little to the west of his line of advance; that he bore to the right to avoid her; that when she passed his line, her daughter screamed and she turned and went faster than the auto, northeast off the eroSswalk and on to the Falls avenue macadam; that he turned left to avoid her; that she then turned again, ran to the car, grabbed it, seemed to press against it, and was pushed down backward by 1t. He claims that he had cleared her on her first tack and would have cleared her on her second tack if she had not suddenly and without warning turned and jumped right against the front of the car. Defendant claims that he was going very slowly and that pru- dence did not call for an absolute stop till the last turn of the plaintiff and that then there was no time to stop. Defendant is sustained in his claim by eight apparently disinterested witness eS, all of whom, I believe, testified to seeing plaintiff come back into the path of the automobile after she had passed to the west, and several of whom testify to seeing her make the second turn into the front of the auto mobile.
 The defendants claim is supported by the fact that the plaintiff lay after the accident at a spot in Falls ave nue considerably north of the cross fhaf $H4 To carried her some distance, but this is evidently a guess, for he was behind the auto, and she in front of it, and he testif1es that the auto obscured the plaintiff from him; that she was out of his sight for two or three seconds; and that he could not see whether the plaintiff started to go one way or the other. The witnesses agree that the plaintiff lay beyond the crosswallz- Dolores Paulsen Says that she was several steps beyond it. Barber thinks that, when the auto struck her, she fell on the macadam. Henrietta Lu- ther says she was beyond the cross walk when she was hit.
 The evidence indicates that she went there by her own agency, which is in consistent with her claim as to the facts. The preponderance of evidence seems to me to indicate that the prox- innate cause of the accident was the plaintiffs negligence, and that the de- tendant used reasonable care.
 That the plaintiff should be alarmed for her daughter and turn back, when she heard her daughter scream, is a natural and probable thing, and is confirmed by her inquiry of her daugh- ter after the accident whether she was not hurt. It is probable that under the influence of the excitement caused
 by the sight of the auto near her and alarm for her daughters safety, the plaintiff quite lost her presence of mind. This would account for her conduct as testified to by defendant S witnesses.
 The whole affair was a matter of seconds, and the defendant can be
 held only to that degree of care which a man of ordinary prudence would use. Decision as to his course of action had to be instantaneous, and, until the plaintiffs last turn upon the car, which he had no reason to expect, he was
 acting in a wey calculated to avoid in il1rV tO her