179 Conn. App. 246
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Jan. 7, 2009, Michael Pettiford (a UPS driver) was struck by a state-owned van while crossing westbound Rock Spring Road near its intersection with Treat Avenue; it was dark and rainy and the roadway was poorly lit.
- Pettiford was wearing dark brown, nonreflective clothing; his truck was parked on the eastbound side approximately 25–30 feet east of the impact area; a package addressed to the nearby delivery address was found near him.
- The van driver (state employee Trevor Jones) was traveling 15–20 mph, had headlights on, and testified he saw Pettiford only a split second before impact; the van struck Pettiford near the double yellow line.
- Pettiford sued the State under a negligence theory (General Statutes § 52-556 waiver), alleging among other things failure to yield to a pedestrian in an unmarked crosswalk; the State asserted contributory/comparative negligence and other pedestrian statutes as defenses.
- The trial court found both parties negligent, assigned Pettiford at least 60% of the fault, concluded no unmarked crosswalk existed at the Treat Ave./Rock Spring Rd. intersection (Treat Ave. lacked sidewalks), and dismissed the action as barred under § 52-572h(b).
- On appeal the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s legal conclusion that no unmarked crosswalk existed and held that, even if one did, the record lacked evidence Pettiford was in or very near it at impact; it reversed the form of judgment and directed the court to enter judgment for the defendant rather than dismissing the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unmarked crosswalk existed where Pettiford was struck | Statutory definition should be construed broadly to include cutouts/curb alignments suggesting a crossing from Treat Ave. | Treat Ave. has no sidewalks, so there are no lateral sidewalk lines to "prolongate" into Rock Spring Rd.; statute’s plain text excludes a crosswalk | No unmarked crosswalk existed under § 14-297(2); court’s plain-text construction affirmed |
| Whether an alleged error about the crosswalk was reversible | Erroneous crosswalk finding undermined duty/right-of-way analysis and comparative fault allocation | Even if crosswalk existed, record does not show Pettiford was in/near it at impact, so error (if any) is harmless speculation | Even assuming error, appellant failed to show it would have altered comparative-negligence outcome; no reversible error |
| Whether Pettiford was more than 50% at fault, barring recovery under § 52-572h(b) | Pettiford contested percentage but did not dispute facts about crossing in dark, wearing nonreflective clothing | State argued Pettiford failed to exercise lookout, crossed into traffic, and failed to use reflective clothing; thus his negligence predominated | Court’s factual finding that Pettiford was at least 60% negligent upheld; bar to recovery applied on merits |
| Proper form of judgment after plaintiff’s failure to prevail | Trial court dismissed action (plaintiff says error in form) | State implicitly treats dismissal as equivalent to adverse judgment | Judgment dismissing action was improper; appellate court directed entry of judgment for the defendant on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Crews v. Crews, 295 Conn. 153 (legal and factual mixed questions reviewed plenarily)
- Vincent v. New Haven, 285 Conn. 778 (statutory construction; courts must apply plain statutory text)
- Washington Mutual Bank v. Coughlin, 168 Conn. App. 278 (statutory construction review scope)
- Lopa v. Brinker International, Inc., 296 Conn. 426 (avoidance of statutory surplusage)
- Jalbert v. Mulligan, 153 Conn. App. 124 (appellant’s burden to demonstrate reversible error)
- In re Jose B., 303 Conn. 569 (failure to prove elements does not destroy subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531 (courts should not construe pleadings or statutes to deprive courts of jurisdiction)