Court Opinion

ID: 9701703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:32:30.871685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:27.554304
License: Public Domain

O’Sullivan, J.
(concurring). I can concur in the result for reasons which need not be elaborated. I cannot, however, go along with the majority when *391they say that the court was justified in refusing to charge that the defendant Nick II. Hallas was negligent as a matter of law. The charge is to be tested, not by the evidence, but by the claims of proof. Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc., p. 102, § 73. The claims of both parties, as stated in the finding, were in accord, strangely enough, on one matter. This was that the defendant, as he continued for a considerable period of time to drive along, could not see where he was or where he was going because of the presence of a thick coating of ice upon his windshield. The situation was not one where the ice made it difficult for Mm to see ahead; the ice made it impossible for him to do so. Furthermore, the defendant makes no claim that he tried to find out where he was going by putting his head out of the side window of the car.
To adopt the reasoning of the opinion is to extend far greater latitude to the conduct of an ordinarily prudent person than I am prepared to give. It seems almost elementary to say that anyone who, like this defendant, continues to operate a car without being able to see where he is or where he is going ought to be held negligent as a matter of law.