Clark v. State

• Decision Date: 05 March 1970
• Docket Number: No. 160992,160992
• Citation: Clark v. State, 264 A.2d 366, 28 Conn.Supp. 398 (Conn. Super. 1970)
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: Carol CLARK et al. v. STATE of Connecticut et al.

Page 366

264 A.2d 366

28 Conn.Supp. 398

Carol CLARK et al. v.STATE of Connecticut et al.

No. 160992.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Hartford County.

March 5, 1970.

Memorandum on demurrer to special defense.Demurrer sustained.

Stoner, Gross & Kline, Hartford, for plaintiffs.

Regnier, Moller & Taylor, Hartford, for the defendants.

RUBINOW, Judge.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, aged eighteen, was a passenger in a vehicle owned by the state of Connecticut, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, and operated by its employee Jasper; that the vehicle left the road and collided with some trees; and that Jasper was operating at an excessive speed, outside the established lane, and without maintaining proper control of the vehicle.

The defendant filed a special defense alleging that a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries was her own negligence in (a) failing to make reasonable use of her own faculties; (b) failing to be watchful of her surroundings and of the way in which the vehicle was being operated and 'of general conditions;'(c) knowing or having reason to know of impending dangers; (d) failing to protest to Jasper about the manner in which the vehicle was being operated; (e) failing to use her sense of sight to discover any existing danger; (f) failing to protest to Jasper; and (g) failing to fasten her seat belt.There is no allegation, in either the complaint or the special defense, that Jasper was, or was reputed to be, an incompetent or dangerous driver; or that the vehicle was not in good condition; or that the weather, or any other conditions, made travel hazardous; or that the plaintiff controlled, or had the right to control, either the movements of the vehicle or the manner in which it was being operated.The plaintiff has demurred to the special defense, on the ground, first, that the alleged omissions on the part of the plaintiff are not duties imposed upon the plaintiff and, second, that, as a matter of law, these omissions cannot have caused the accident.

With respect to the first ground of the demurrer, there can be no dispute concerning the principle governing the 'duty' of a passenger to protect himself.Although the statements of it vary slightly, the principle is: '(P) assengers are required to exercise ordinary care for their own safety * * *.'Mechem, 'The Contributory Negligence of Automobile Passengers,'78 U.Pa.L.Rev. 736, 741.So, the demurrer in this case raises the question what 'ordinary care' requires a passenger to do, when there are no unusual circumstances such as hazardous traveling conditions, or a known incompetent driver, or an unsafe vehicle.

The decisions of our state have repeatedly held that under ordinary circumstances there is no duty upon a passenger to take any action with respect to the operation of a motor vehicle."Generally a passenger in an automobile should sit still and say nothing, because any other course is fraught with danger.Interference by laying hold of an operating lever, or by exclamation, or even by direction or inquiry, is generally to be deprecated, as in the long run the greater safety lies in letting the driver alone."Marks v. Dorkin, 105 Conn. 521, 525, 136 A. 83, 84.'(O)rdinarily it is not the duty of a guest to give instructions to the driver, but he may rely upon the latter's skill and judgment.'Speerle v. Dabney, 113 Conn. 302, 304, 155 A. 56, 57.'(T)he * * * (passenger's) duty was very light, * * * she had no control of the operation of the automobile and was not bound to direct its operation, and * * * generally speaking, a passenger in an automobile has no duty to direct its operation.'Kilday v. Voltz, 117 Conn. 170, 174, 166 A. 754, 755.The current state of the authorities is thus summed up: 'Generally a passenger in a motor vehicle may be as supine as inert freight, particularly if he is...