189 Conn. App. 172
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- On Jan. 24, 2012, Michelle Williams (plaintiff) swerved over a hill on Route 15 to avoid a Department of Transportation (DOT) maintenance crash unit driven by employee Terrence Lynch; she struck a guardrail, became airborne, and hit Lynch’s truck.
- Williams sued the State under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-556 alleging multiple acts of negligence by Lynch while operating a state vehicle (e.g., obstructing traffic, failing to warn/divert traffic, improper positioning/control, violating DOT rules/procedures).
- The State denied negligence and asserted comparative negligence. The case was tried to the bench in Hartford Superior Court; witnesses included the plaintiff, Lynch, a passing motorist (McNamara), and a trooper.
- The trial court credited Lynch’s testimony and photographic evidence that warning signs/arrow board were present, discredited plaintiff and McNamara on signage, and found plaintiff failed to meet her burden that the State’s negligence more likely than not caused her injuries.
- The court’s written decision focused primarily on whether adequate warning signs existed, but concluded generally that the plaintiff’s evidence was not credible enough to prevail on any of the alleged bases of negligence.
- Williams appealed claiming (1) the trial court narrowed the issues and failed to consider all negligence theories pled, and (2) the court ignored statutes, DOT regulations, and the MUTCD — a claim the appellate court held was not preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court limited its ruling to the signage issue and failed to consider all negligence specifications | Court focused on signs only and ignored other negligence theories in the complaint | Court’s decision, read as a whole, shows it considered all theories and found plaintiff failed to meet her burden | Affirmed: court considered all theories; credibility findings supported dismissal |
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider statutes, DOT regulations, and the MUTCD | Williams argued she alleged regulatory/statutory violations and offered related exhibits/excerpts | State argued regulations/MUTCD were not pleaded or admitted; no foundation or testimony; thus not before the court | Not preserved for appeal: plaintiff never introduced or litigated specific statutes/regulations/MUTCD at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (2008) (judgments construed like written instruments; intent of court from whole judgment controls)
- Pettiford v. State, 179 Conn. App. 246 (2018) (appellant bears burden to demonstrate reversible error; appellate courts do not presume trial court error)
- Somers v. Chan, 110 Conn. App. 511 (2008) (appellate court will not revisit trial court credibility findings)
- Kaplan v. Kaplan, 186 Conn. 387 (1982) (appellate court cannot substitute its assessment of evidence weight for factfinder)
- White v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 313 Conn. 610 (2014) (claims not distinctly raised at trial generally are not reviewable on appeal)