Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

MARIE E. SIC v. MICHAEL E. NUNAN (AC 32196)
Bishop, Alvord and Bear, Js. Argued March 11--officially released May 17, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Sferrazza, J.) M. Hatcher Norris, with whom, on the brief, was J. Anthony Doran, for the appellant (plaintiff). Thomas A. Kyzivat, for the appellee (defendant).

Opinion

BISHOP, J. In this action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff, Marie E. Sic, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Michael E. Nunan. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined as a matter of law that the defendant did not owe her a legal duty of care. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court. On September 24, 2008, the plaintiff filed this negligence action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries that she sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred between herself and the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because he did not owe the plaintiff a legal duty. For the purposes of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the following facts are undisputed. On September 21, 2007, the defendant was traveling on Route 66 in Hebron. He stopped at an intersection to wait for a break in oncoming traffic so that he could turn left. While he was stopped, his vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by Jessica Thoma,1 and his vehicle was propelled into the lane of oncoming traffic, where it collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in that he, inter alia,2 ``had stopped his vehicle in such a position that he was not facing directly ahead'' and that he ``had stopped [his vehicle with] his wheels turned to the left, in such a manner that were he to be impacted from the rear . . . his vehicle would move into the lane of travel of any oncoming vehicle rather than straight ahead.'' In support of his motion for summary judgment, the defendant provided an affidavit in which he stated that, when his vehicle was struck by Thoma's, he was stopped at the intersection preparing to turn left and he was in his own travel lane until he was hit. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of John C. Swanson, Jr., an accident reconstructionist, who opined that the defendant's vehicle was pushed ahead and to the left, rather than straight forward, because the front tires of the defendant's vehicle were turned to the left at the time the defendant was stopped at the intersection and struck by Thoma. The defendant did not dispute Swanson's opinion. The plaintiff also submitted the transcript of the deposition testimony of James MacPherson, a master driving instructor. MacPherson testified that, although there is no statute or regulation requiring a driver to keep the wheels of his or her vehicle straight when waiting to turn, proper and safe driving practice requires that they be kept straight. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, emphasizing that drivers are entitled

to assume that other drivers are operating their vehicles safely. The court determined that a driver who is stopped while preparing to make a left turn does not owe a duty of care to oncoming drivers to ``foresee and defend against the general possibility that a third driver will violate the law, or otherwise operate unsafely, and smash into the rear of his or her stopped vehicle and thrust it into the path of oncoming traffic.'' The court, therefore, concluded that the defendant was ``under no duty to defend the plaintiff against such an eventuality by having his wheels positioned in a particular direction.'' This appeal followed. ``Practice Book

Download Sic v. Nunan.pdf

Connecticut Law