CT Supreme Court Reversed $1,780,000 State DOT Lawsuit
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 12, 2017
Accident & Injury Accident & Injury Car Accident Accident & Injury Personal Injury
Summary: Blog post on a case where a verdict for a plaintiff against the state department of transportation was overturned because of improper jury instructions.
Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.
A verdict in favor of an injured motorist was reversed because the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury that if a state truck was being used as a warning device or protective barrier at the time of plaintiff's injury, the state was immune from liability because the truck was not being "operated" for purposes of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-556.
The plaintiff brought action against the State of Connecticut in connection with injuries suffered in motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff, Kelly Allsion, alleged that her injuries resulted from negligence on the part of a state employee, James M. Zucco, because he parked a department of transportation truck so as to obstruct a major roadway. According to Connecticut General Statute § 52-556, “any person injured in person or property through the negligence of any state official or employee when operating a motor vehicle owned and insured by the state. . . shall have a right of action against the state to recover damages for such injury.” The trial court found that Allison was entitled to damages under this statute, and awarded damages against the defendant in the amount of $1,780,000. The defendants appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that this statute was not applicable to the case at hand. Zucco’s operation of the truck was done in the furtherance of addressing a hazardous road condition. In this respect, the initial ruling had improperly applied § 52- 566 beyond its scope. Zucco had parked the car for use as a hazard warning, and was not even inside the vehicle when the accident occurred. The trial court’s judgment was reversed.
At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.
Source: Allison v. Manetta, 284 Conn. 389; 2007 Conn. LEXIS 450 (Conn. November 13, 2007)
