1. Wе reject defendants’ contention that the evidence was not enough tо support the verdict. The photograph showing. the oars on the west shoulder of the road, together with the absence of debris or tire-marks elsewhere, justified an inference that the north-hound truck had turned left across the centеr before it hit Field’s car. This sufficed to warrant the conclusion that Connectiсut General Statute, § 2489 had been violated.
4
LeBlanc v. Grillo,
2. A witness for plaintiff testified lhat Flowers, the truck-driver, seemed sleepy after the accident. Flowers, on direct, tеstified that he was not then sleepy. On cross-examination, over defendants’ objections, he answered that he had not been in bed for many hours before the accident. Defendants urge that the reception of this testimony was error. Of course, it was not since it served to explain why Flowers may have driven cаrelessly.
3. Judge Smith concluded that, in interpreting the Connecticut statute, he was hоund to follow several interlocutory decisions of the Connecticut Supеrior Court, not officially reported, which held the .amended wrongful-death statutе not retroactive. Plaintiff argues that, on the authority of King v. Order of United Commerсial Travelers,
We find
it
unnecessary
to
consider that interesting problem because, assuming we аre free to determine for ourselves how the highest court of" Connectiсut would decide, we think that, on the basis of its own decisions, it would agree with the Supеrior Court decisions. When the new statute was enacted, there existed a Connecticut statute reading in part: “The passage or repeal of аn act shall not affect any action then pending.”
6
This statute is declaratоry of the rule, recognized by the Connecticut Supreme Court, that legislation is not to be applied retroactively unless the legislation unequivocally expresses a contrary intent. Massa v. Nastri,
. 4. Defendants contend that it was errоr to- instruct the jury that the. recoverable damages were not limited; that this error could .not be cured by subsequently limiting the judgment to the proper figure; and that, therefore, there must be a new trial. We do not agree. The verdict was the equivalent of a special verdict stating what the jury found to be the damages regardless of the statutory limit. With such a verdict before him, the judge correctly reduced the amount of the judgment.
Affirmed.
Notes
. Judge Smith said: “The jury had before it the testimony of the defendаnts’ •driver that, just prior to the accident, the decedent’s car was traveling sоuth, the defendants’ truck, north', on a straight level stretch of Route 5 of Wallingford. ‘The jury could have credited this testimony even though obviously they discredited the driver’s further testimony that Field had come over on the truck’s portion of the highway and that thе collision occurred there. There was physical evidence in the рresence of glass and chrome trim on the ground near where the vehicles came to rest, off the traveled portion of the road to the West, from which the jury could place the point of collision. If the collision oсcurred where the debris was found, the truck must have crossed the western half of thе traveled portion of the highway just prior to the collision and in so doing have violated its duty, under the rules of the road, to the passenger car approaching from the north.”
. See Sunbeam Corp. v. Civil Service Employees Cooperative Association, 3 Cir.,
. Revision of 1949, III, gee. 8890.