184 Conn. App. 249
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Dec. 31, 2014, Farmer-Lanctot and a group walked from a New Year’s Eve gathering through a residential subdivision (Wynding Hills) at ~10:30 p.m.; they had turned off their lights.
- The group walked in the middle of the subdivision’s exit road; the plaintiff was about 25 feet from the corner and walking uphill near the grassy center island.
- Shand drove downhill around a curve onto the exit road, saw the group, and stopped approximately five feet down the road; the plaintiff jumped onto the center island and broke her arm.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence; defendant denied negligence and pleaded plaintiff’s contributory negligence as a special defense. The case was tried to a jury; no interrogatories were submitted. The jury returned a general verdict for the defendant.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing the trial court should have charged the jury on: (1) the sudden emergency doctrine, (2) pedestrian standard of care in a roadway, and (3) a driver’s duty to yield to pedestrians when making a right-hand turn (model crosswalk instruction).
- The trial court refused the requested ‘‘right-hand turn / crosswalk’’ instruction because the evidence did not show a crosswalk or a turn; the Appellate Court affirmed, applying the general verdict rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by refusing to charge that a driver turning must yield to pedestrians (model §587(d) crossing-at-crosswalk instruction) | Farmer-Lanctot: court should have instructed that a turning driver must yield to pedestrians and that pedestrians have right-of-way over turning cars | Shand: evidence did not show a regular crossing or a right-hand turn; requested instruction was inapplicable and could mislead the jury | Court: No error — record shows defendant navigated a curve and stopped, not making a right-hand turn, and plaintiff was not at/near a crosswalk; instruction properly declined |
| Whether the court erred by refusing to charge on sudden emergency doctrine (contributory negligence context) | Farmer-Lanctot: the jury should have been instructed on sudden emergency as relevant to plaintiff’s conduct | Shand: general verdict rule and lack of supporting facts mean contributory-negligence instruction need not be reviewed if negligence instruction proper | Court: Did not reach merits because negligence charge was proper; general verdict rule presumes defendant not negligent and precludes review of contributory-negligence instructions |
| Whether the court erred by refusing to charge on pedestrian standard of care in roadway (contributory negligence) | Farmer-Lanctot: plaintiff entitled to instruction on pedestrian standard of care | Shand: record does not support such an instruction and general verdict rule bars review if negligence instruction stands | Court: Review barred by general verdict rule after finding no error on negligence instruction |
| Applicability of the general verdict rule to preclude appellate review of contributory-negligence claims | Farmer-Lanctot: (implicitly) the court should review claimed instruction errors | Shand: defendant argued that the general verdict rule applies because jury returned a general verdict and defendant pleaded contributory negligence as a special defense | Court: General verdict rule applies (denial + special defense); because negligence charge was proper, presume jury found no negligence and decline to review contributory-negligence instruction claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowling v. Finley Associates, Inc., 248 Conn. 364 (discusses general verdict rule and situations where it applies)
- Morales v. Moore, 85 Conn. App. 208 (states denial of negligence and allegation of contributory negligence are distinct defenses supporting a general verdict)
- Colucci v. Pinette, 185 Conn. 483 (if any instruction is proper as to any defense, general verdict stands despite errors as to others)
- Doe v. Saint Francis Hospital & Medical Center, 309 Conn. 146 (trial court must give requested charge that is accurate statement of law and supported by evidence)