Opinion
Argued October 24th, 1929
Decided January 6th, 1930.
ACTION to recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff's automobile, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, brought to the Court of Common Pleas for Fairfield County and tried to the court before Shaw, J.; the court nonsuited the plaintiff and from the denial of his motion to set aside the judgment entered thereon, the plaintiff appealed. Error and new trial ordered.
Jackson Palmer, with whom, on the brief, were C. Milton Fessenden, Matthew H. Kenealy and Daniel E. Ryan, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Edward J. Quinlan, for the appellee (defendant).
Treating the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in connection with the map and photographs of the damaged car in the most favorable aspect of which it is reasonably susceptible and according to the evidence every favorable inference of fact that might be reasonably drawn from it and giving reasonable credit to the evidence offered by the plaintiff in the absence of explanation or contradiction, we think the jury might reasonably have found that defendant was negligent in one of the ways alleged in the complaint and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the injury to plaintiff's car, to which plaintiff did not materially contribute. The nonsuit was wrongly granted. Hoyt v. Connecticut Co., 107 Conn. 160, 139 A. 647; Fritz v. Gaudet, 101 Conn. 52, 124 A. 841.