Court Opinion

ID: 9766286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:39:15.092901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:21.013551
License: Public Domain

*79House, C. J.
(dissenting). I do not agree with the conclusion reached in the majority opinion. While the charge that the people who were parked within five to ten feet of the intersection of Shipping and West Thames Streets were parked in violation of the statutes was irrelevant to the issues in the case, I think that the giving of that portion of the charge was clearly harmless error in view of the court’s explicit charge on the issues of liability. I cannot agree with the majority opinion’s speculation that it “may have suggested to the jury that the question of whether the operators of the parked vehicles were at fault was for their determination” or that “it is probable that the charge either misled or confused some of the jurors as to the causative elements to be considered by them.”
Furthermore, I think that a proper objection was not taken to this portion of the charge. The exception was taken on two grounds: “first of all there was no testimony on that, and in the second place there was no allegation in the complaint concerning this; that’s all I have.” On their appeal, the plaintiffs have claimed neither of these grounds. Their present claim is that the charge was erroneous because (1) the statute was inapplicable because of the provisions contained in the last sentence of the statute, and (2) there was no claim that the illegal parking was a proximate cause of the accident. Neither of these grounds was stated to the trial court. In my opinion, “[t]he exceptions which the plaintiff [s] attempted to take failed to state distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection and could not fairly be said to have apprised the trial court of the error claimed. Con*80sequently, error could not be predicated on them.” Prystash v. Best Medium Publishing Co., 157 Conn. 507, 512, 254 A.2d 872.
I would affirm the judgment entered in the trial court.
In this opinion Barber, J., concurred.