Opinion
No. CV-08-5005322-S
November 17, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Procedural Background
This vigorously contested motor vehicle case was initiated by summons and complaint dated December 5, 2007, wherein the plaintiff alleged the defendant Harry Rollinson was operating a truck negligently causing a collision between the plaintiff's vehicle and the vehicle of one Richard DiCapua. The remaining defendants are alleged to be the owners of the truck and/or the employers of Rollinson. In the Answer filed January 30, 2008 the defendants put in issue the question of the negligence of Rollinson and raised various special defenses including contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Subsequently the matter was claimed for trial.
A trial to the court was held in this court at New London on October 20, 2009 where both parties were well represented by counsel. Briefs were filed by both parties on November 10, 2009.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the evidence, including reasonable and logical inferences from the same, and including the court's evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses, the following relevant facts are found.
The traffic signals at the intersection of the New London Turnpike and Route 83 in Norwich, Connecticut, were malfunctioning on August 3, 2006 at around 11:00 a.m. Traffic approaching the intersection on the New London turnpike had flashing red lights, while traffic on Route 82 had flashing yellow lights. Richard DiCapua was driving south on the New London Turnpike toward the Route 82 intersection, and he stopped short of the intersection at the red flashing light. After looking both ways and seeing no cars approaching in the westbound lanes of Route 82 to his left, Mr. DiCapua proceeded into the intersection and stopped with the bumper of his truck nosed up to the center of the intersection. Mr. DiCapua stopped because as he had begun to make his way into the intersection he had observed two vehicles approaching from his right, traveling east on Route 82. An oil delivery truck was the lead vehicle, and another unidentified vehicle was behind it. Defendant Harry Rollinson was driving the oil delivery truck in the course of his employment with Heating Oil Partners (now HOP Energy, LLC).
Mr. DiCapua first saw the oil delivery truck when it was approximately 250-300 feet away from the intersection and traveling in the right eastbound lane of Route 82. Mr. DiCapua had entered the intersection, but stopped at the far edge of the left travel lane on the westbound side of Route 82 when he determined that he would be unable to safely cross the intersection in front of the two vehicles. Mr. DiCapua testified and it is found that he observed the oil truck driven by Mr. Rollinson move into the left eastbound travel lane of Route 82 about 125-150 feet west of the intersection. The oil delivery truck was proceeding at 15 to 20 miles an hour. The speed unit on the road was 35 miles an hour. Mr. Rollinson was especially alert at the time because it was unusual for the traffic light to be a flashing light instead of the normal red/yellow/green sequence. After Mr. Rollinson checked to be sure it was clear for him to do so he made a left turn through the intersection toward the northbound lanes of the New London Turnpike. After the oil delivery truck passed through the intersection, the plaintiff maneuvered around the truck without knowing what, if anything, was on the other side and the front bumper of the plaintiff's car struck Mr. DiCapua's truck between the front and rear doors on the driver's side of the quad cab pick-up truck. Mr. DiCapua never saw Ms. LaChappelle's car before it hit his pick-up truck because the oil delivery truck blocked his view.
At the time Ms. LaChappelle drove west on Route 82 toward the intersection with the New London Turnpike she had an unobstructed view of the intersection. She had a flashing yellow light at the intersection. She saw the oil delivery truck driven by Mr. Rollinson for about twenty seconds as it approached that same intersection from the eastbound side of Route 82. At no time before her accident did Ms. LaChappelle notice Mr. DiCapua's pick-up truck stopped and idling broadside across the two westbound travel lanes in the intersection in front of her. The plaintiff's vehicle struck the DiCapua vehicle after the oil truck of Mr. Rollinson passed in front of her. There have been no legal claims asserted as between Ms. LaChappelle and Mr. DiCapua. Ms. LaChappelle's vehicle did not contact Mr. Rollinson's oil delivery truck.
Notwithstanding the plaintiff's claim to the contrary there is no credible evidence that Mr. Rollinson began his turn through the intersection of Route 82 and the New London Turnpike from the far right eastbound lane of Route 82. The plaintiff testified and it is found that there was nothing in front of her to hinder or impair her view of the intersection as she drove toward it at thirty to thirty-five miles per hour.
THE LAW
A plaintiff has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to establish one or more of the claims of negligence alleged in the complaint. Northrop v. Allstate Insurance Co., 247 Conn. 242 (1998).
"It is an . . . elementary rule that whenever the existence of any fact is necessary in order that a party may make out his case . . . the burden is on such party to show the existence of such fact." Nikitiuk v. Pishtey, 153 Conn. 545, 552 (1966).
Under Connecticut law, regardless of which vehicle has the right of way at an intersection, right of way does not relieve a driver carte blanche to disregard another vehicle that is already in the intersection. In Gorman v. American Sumatra Tobacco Corp., 146 Conn. 383, 386; 151 A.2d 341, 343 (1959), the Court held that a plaintiff proceeding into an intersection under a standard green light "did not have the right to proceed without maintaining a lookout for other vehicles already in the intersection."
CONCLUSION
The plaintiff in this case has not sustained her burden of proof that the defendant Rollinson was negligent in any one of the ways alleged in the complaint. Therefore, judgment may enter for the defendants, together with allowable costs.