The Waterbury Democrat., 1940-12-18

tAlS fcIulCI 1OI. LIl6 pldllIlI1 OH GIle ground that the jury was unwar- ranted in finding the plaintiff free from contributory negligence. To- day, however, the Supreme Court holds that there was error in set ting aside the verdict against Will Hams, but dissented with that part which holds there was error in Set- ting it aside as to the other de- Ffendants, Graves and Block.
 According to the Supreme Court, following the accident the plaintiff was engaged in untying the tow rope from the Galvan car at the time he was struck. Just prior to the collision the defendant Graves in driving the car owned by the defendant Block from the north to- ward the plaintiffs truck had turned to her right in an effort to pass to the west of it. The defend ant Williams, Jr., driving the car owned by the defendant Williams, Sr., followed behind her and did the same. After it had passed the plaintiffs truck, the front end of the Block car contacted the rear right part of the Galvan car, and the Williams car immediately after crashed into the back of the Block car, driving the Galvan car forward. These facts are not disputed. The precise location of the plaintiffs truck, what constitutes the travelled portion of the road, whether the plaintiff was injured at the original impact of the Block car against the Calvin car or at the second one caused by the collision of the Will Hams car with the Block car, and what the conduct of the defendant drivers was, are in dispute.
 The other basis stated by the court for it's decision is to the effect that the plaintiff under the circum- stances was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law in parking his truck, getting out, and proceeding to unite the tow rope from the rear of the Galvan car as he did just prior to being struck. The courts conclusion cannot be supported upon this ground unless it be so that the jury could not req l oSAAo1Ay AlotC 4OOA1O b1idU Uk1C tiff exercised that care which req sonably prudent man would have exercised under the circumstances The determination as to what these circumstances were involved among others, questions concerning the lo- cation of the plaintiff and of the vehicles involved, his knowledge ot the layout of the road, the light visibility, weather, condition of the highway and the reasonable prob abilities; in short, such conditions as are usually presented in litiga- tion of this nature. Upon the evil dence this determination, as we'll as that of what the parties did or omitted to do under the circum- stances, and of what a reasonably prudent man would have done hereunder, and also conclusion predicated thereon that the plain tiff was or was not contributorily negligent, presented questions of fact to be determined by the jury, and not by the court as matter of law.
 Upon the issue of proximate cause the jury could reasonably have found that the plaintiff had just united the two rope from the right end of the rear bumper of the Galvan car, that he stood about eight feet south of the rear of his truck and immediately back of the Galvan car. that the left front cor ner of the Block car had proceeded southerly past the west side of the truck and had almost stopped, lightly contacting the right rear corner of the Galvan car, but in such manner as not to injure the plaintiff; that immediately there after the Williams car, following close behind the Block car, crashed violently into it's rear as the Block car stopped, forcing it forward and pinning the plaintiff between its front and the rear of the Galvan car with sufficient violence to crush his right leg, crumple back the front fender of the Block car, and drive the Galvan car twenty five feet fur ther south. Upon these facts found the jury were warranted in con- cluding that the negligence of the defendant Williams was a sub stantial factor in producing the plaintiffs injury AS to the defend ants Block and Graves the jury were warranted in finding that their negligence gave rise to the situa- tion which left the plaintiff in a position of peril from the collision of the Williams car with the Block car which immediately ensued. They were further warranted in conclud- ing that this negligence was a sub- stantial factor in producing the plaintiffs injury.
 Attys. Michael V. Blansfield and Harry M. Albert appeared for the plaintiff while Attys. Daniel D. Morgan and Joseph B. Morse, de-