Fain v. Benak, 205 Conn. App. 734

On June 5, 2017, a state employee (Benak) was driving a state vehicle when a front tire blew out and her vehicle crossed the center line, striking plaintiff Marie Fain’s car; Fain sustained serious injuries (fractured hip and arm, bruised kidney) and required surgery and rehabilitation.
Fain sued the Department of Administrative Services under General Statutes § 52-556, alleging Benak’s negligence; the case was tried to the court, which found Benak negligent and proximate cause and awarded $344,867.33 in damages.
The trial court found it reasonably probable Fain would need future surgery and physical therapy but initially concluded there was insufficient evidence to quantify future medical costs.
Fain moved for reconsideration and submitted a treating physician’s letter (admitted at trial) stating it was more likely than not she would need future hardware removal ($6,000–$8,000) and periodic physical therapy ($100–$150/visit); the court granted reconsideration and awarded $14,250 for future medical expenses.
The Department appealed, arguing (1) the unavoidable accident doctrine should bar liability because the tire blowout was unforeseeable, and (2) the posttrial award for future medical expenses lacked sufficient evidentiary support.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the unavoidable accident doctrine bars liability for the collision caused by a tire blowout	Fain argued the trial court found Benak negligent (crossing center line, failing to slow) so unavoidable-accident doctrine does not apply	DAS argued the sudden tire blowout was unforeseeable and thus an unavoidable accident that precludes negligence liability	The court held plenary review appropriate and affirmed: because the factfinder found Benak negligent and her actions proximately caused the collision, the accident could not be treated as unavoidable as a matter of law
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting reconsideration and awarding future medical expenses based on the treating physician’s letter and trial evidence	Fain argued the physician’s letter plus prior medical bills, life expectancy, and estimated costs provided a reasonable probability and sufficient basis to approximate future medical expenses	DAS argued the physician’s letter was too speculative to allow a reasonable estimate of future PT needs and surgery costs	The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion: the evidence supplied a degree of medical certainty and a reasonable probabilistic basis to award $14,250 for future medical expenses

Shea v. Tousignant, 172 Conn. 54 (1976) (recognizes instruction on unavoidable accident where driver loses consciousness without warning)
Tomczuk v. Alvarez, 184 Conn. 182 (1981) (cautions that unavoidable-accident instruction can confuse jury and should be uncommon)
Marchetti v. Ramirez, 240 Conn. 49 (1997) (future medical expenses must be based on reasonable probabilities, not mere speculation)
Barrese v. DeFillippo, 45 Conn. App. 102 (1997) (unavoidable-accident charge appropriate only where record supports finding that negligence of neither party was involved)