Michael A. Hill v. Deborah W. Smith (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AFTER TRIAL

This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on December 30, 2010 sometime after 9:00 a.m. in the Stop & Shop parking lot on Chase Avenue in Waterbury.   The plaintiff, Michael A. Hill, was traveling north in a parking lot lane driving a 1995 Jeep Cherokee.   The defendant, Deborah Smith, was traveling easterly in said parking lot in a through travel lane to a 9:00 a.m. dentist appointment in said shopping plaza.   She alleged that she was traveling approximately 15 to 20 miles per hour;  was in a hurry, but not speeding to the said dentist appointment.

The plaintiff was approaching a stop sign in his lane of travel, located perpendicular to the defendant's lane of travel.   The plaintiff alleges that he came to a complete stop at the stop sign and then proceeded forward into the subject intersection, looking to his left and right.   On his immediate left at the intersection was a large pile of snow, approximately 10 feet in height and encroaching somewhat into the defendant's travel lane.   This said pile of snow would have obstructed the line of vision of both drivers.

The plaintiff alleged that he slowly entered into the said intersection when he was impacted by the defendant's motor vehicle (2003 Honda Civic Hybrid) with sufficient force to move the front section of his motor vehicle.   The defendant alleges that the plaintiff came into her lane of travel and struck her motor vehicle on its front right quarter panel and wheelbase.   The photo exhibits (defendant's A) indicate an impact at the front right section of the defendant's car.   There were no photos of the plaintiff's vehicle.

The court can find that the said snowbank obstructed plaintiff's view to some extent as well as the defendant's line of sight for any traffic coming from her right side.   Under the General Statutes § 14–301(c) any driver approaching an intersection controlled by traffic signal or sign must control his vehicle so as to cause no risk of harm to any other driver.   Although this statute was not pled by the plaintiff, it corresponds to the common-law standard of reasonable care under the given circumstances.

The issue to be decided in this case is whether the defendant Deborah Smith was negligent as the plaintiff alleges under the common law in that she “was traveling too fast for the conditions and/or;  ․ failed to keep a proper lookout for obstructions and vehicles on the road.”   The failure of both drivers to observe one another's position and speed as they entered into the subject intersection places liability on both of them.   Not unlike the case of Salvatore v. Milicki, 163 Conn. 275, 280 (1972), the Court must weigh the probative evidence to determine if the plaintiff has met its burden of proof.

The plaintiff has an obligation to proceed into such an intersection with caution and reasonable care after stopping at the said stop sign.   The defendant has a corresponding duty to proceed with caution as she approaches such an intersection, which has an obvious sight line obstruction created by the pile of snow.

The Court finds that the defendant was traveling too fast for the conditions existing at the subject intersection and failed to see the plaintiff as he entered the said intersection.   The Court attempts to balance the credible facts and reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom and therefore comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence a sufficient degree of negligence against the defendant and therefore finds for the plaintiff in the following way.

The Court finds for the plaintiff in the amount of economic damages of $5,706 subject to any collateral source setoffs.

The credible evidence establishes that the plaintiff has significant pre-existing medical/physical conditions, but no specific disability rating has been assigned to him arising out of this particular incident.   The Court assigns a non-economic award to the plaintiff in the amount of $4,000.

Judgment enters in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $9,706 plus costs.

BY THE COURT

V. ROCHE, J.

Roche, Vincent E., J.