330 A.2d 101 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1974
The plaintiff holds a Connecticut operator's license. On February 23, 1972, he was operating a heavy, ten-wheel dump truck, owned by his employer, B. N. Beard Company, southbound on route 8, in Shelton, Connecticut. At the base of the Howe Street exit ramp, a Ford Falcon, operated by Walter Walsh, was stopped for a red light, behind a large trailer truck. The plaintiff's truck collided with the rear end of the Walsh vehicle, fatally injuring Walsh.
At the request of the plaintiff, a rehearing was held on October 3, 1973. Pursuant to a letter of an adjudicator for the defendant dated January 24, 1974, the plaintiff was found guilty of a violation of the above three statutes. Accordingly, the plaintiff's license was again ordered suspended for a period of at least one year. The present appeal is prosecuted from the order dated January 24, 1974.
The plaintiff, after leaving the river with a load of wet gravel, applied his brakes at a Texaco station. They allegedly seemed to be operating properly, although the plaintiff did not come to a full stop. As the plaintiff approached the exit ramp on which the accident happened, he applied the brakes, but they did not function. He tried the foot brake and the trolley brake, without success. He thought that he had the truck in second gear at the time of *328 the collision with the Walsh vehicle. His truck was traveling thirty-five to forty miles per hour just prior to the collision.
The plaintiff's truck was registered for a maximum weight of 53,800 pounds. The truck later was found to weigh 62,160 pounds, or some 8,360 pounds over the legal limit.
At the time of the accident, the road was dry, and visibility was good. On the morning of the accident, about three or four trucks owned by the Beard Company had trouble with their braking systems, owing to ice formation. David O'Connor, superintendent of transportation for the Beard Company, in testifying as to the cause of the brake failure, stated that water from the river must have splashed on the brake drums; that the water fell on the foot valve and turned to ice; and that ice on the foot valve was the responsible cause of the brake failure on the plaintiff's truck. Jerry Pison, chief mechanic for the Beard Company, likewise testified that the cause of the accident was icing of the brakes.
The plaintiff asserted at the hearing of October 3, 1973, that there was nothing that he could have done to avoid the accident, under the circumstances.
The plaintiff principally objects to his culpability under §§
The defendant's finding and order must stand, except as modified by the comments in section III hereinbelow.
Recklessness requires a conscious choice of a course of action, either with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it, or with knowledge of facts which would disclose such danger to any reasonable man. Mooney v. Wabrek,
The entire record warrants a conclusion that the plaintiff was guilty of simple negligence. Such negligence as was found by the defendant was not of the exacerbated type which could be legitimately classified as reckless misconduct under §
Section
On the basis of the evidence, the malfunctioning of the brakes arose from formation of ice thereon. The probable source of the water deposits leading to the ice was the plaintiff's trip through portions of the Naugatuck river. The plaintiff was not a novice as a truck driver. In view of the zero temperature on February 23, 1972, it was not reasonable or prudent for the plaintiff to expose his truck to the risk of ice formation on the brake parts, with the concomitant hazard of subsequent brake failure.
The estimated speed of thirty-five to forty miles per hour as the plaintiff descended the ramp permits another inference of negligence, having in mind the weight of the truck and its substantial overload.
Certainly, the plaintiff did not have his truck under proper or reasonable control as he began to descend the exit ramp.
The short answer is that operation of the overweight truck was negligence per se. Smith v. Finkel,
supra, 357. The statute requires strict accountability by the operator, irrespective of his knowledge, *331
or claimed lack of knowledge, of the overload.State v. Lesnewsky, 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 30, 33. When the plaintiff operated the overloaded truck on the highway, he did so at his risk. State v. Salone,
The defendant could reasonably find that the plaintiff's violation of §
It has been seen, in section III hereinabove, that the defendant's finding of a violation of §
Accordingly, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.