Gregory v. Gregg
41 A.3d 1202
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Gregory sued Gregg for injuries from a March 3, 2006 collision in Trumbull alleging negligent operation.
- Defendant denied negligence and raised a comparative fault/party negligence defense.
- Evidence showed snow and ice on the roadway; parties agreed Gregory proved defendant failed to look, control, yield.
- Defendant produced evidence that Gregory was speeding for conditions and failed to look, control, turn, or yield.
- The court instructed on the sudden emergency doctrine; the jury returned a verdict for Gregg.
- Gregory appealed, arguing the sudden emergency instruction was unwarranted and the record insufficient to review under the general verdict rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the sudden emergency instruction proper? | Gregory asserts the instruction was unwarranted by evidence. | Gregg argues the instruction was warranted by the surrounding facts. | Affirmed; instruction not reversible error given general verdict rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. Moore, 85 Conn.App. 208 (2004) (general verdict rule; requires record or interrogatories to reveal grounds)
- O'Donnell v. Feneque, 120 Conn.App. 167 (2010) (test for applicability of sudden emergency instruction)