Uresky v. Fedora

Decision Date13 August 1968
Docket NumberNo. 115914,115914
Citation27 Conn.Supp. 498,245 A.2d 393
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
PartiesCarol URESKY v. Michael FEDORA et al.

Dennis F. Harrigan, Milford, for plaintiff.

Falsey, Shay & Del Sole, New Haven, for defendant Bruce Parsons.

FITZ GERALD, Judge.

The defendants are two in number, namely, Michael Fedora and Bruce Parsons. In substance, the complaint of the minor plaintiff alleges that on March 3, 1967, she was a passenger in a 1966 Plymouth car owned and operated by the defendant Fedora, which car came into collision, within the limits of two intersecting highways in Shelton, with a car owned and operated by the defendant parsons, and that as a result of the collision she was thrown about the interior of the Fedora car and suffered injuries and other consequences for which she seeks damages of both defendants. The allegations of negligence directed against both defendant operators are of the stock variety in cases of this character.

The defendant Parsons, owner and operator of the car which collided with the car in which the minor plaintiff was a passenger, has by amendment to his answer interposed a special defense. It reads: '1. At the time of the accident, the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger, was equipped with seat belts for the use of passengers therein. 2. Any injuries or damages suffered by the plaintiff, Carol Uresky, were proximately caused by her failure to fasten said seat belts around herself.' The minor plaintiff has demurred thereto on three grounds, the gist of which is: (1) The allegations of the special defense do not constitute a standard of care to which the plaintiff can be held; (2) a failure to use a seat belt is not an omission to do something which a reasonable person would do; (3) the failure to use a seat belt cannot constitute contributory negligence; (4) the plaintiff's failure to use a seat belt was not a proximate cause of her injuries.

Section 14-100a of the General Statutes is referable to the equipment of new passenger motor vehicles to be sold or registered in Connecticut (with at least two sets of seat safety belts for the front seat of the motor vehicle). The effective date of this statute is January 1, 1964. Public Acts 1963, No. 405. There is no Connecticut statute to date which requires the use of seat belts by a passenger in a car so equipped. Granting that the interposed special defense does not allege that the plaintiff was seated in the front seat of the Fedora car, which the statute required to be equipped 'with at least two sets of seat safety belts,' the court, for the purposes of this demurrer, will assume that there was available to the plaintiff the use of a seat belt, whether she was seated in the front or rear seat of the Fedora car.

Reference is made to the annotation contained in 15 A.L.R.3d 1428 and to the many recent decisions of reviewing courts therein noted. Perhaps the most recent decision by a high court of review is the comprehensive opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina in Miller v. Miller, 273 N.C. 228, 160 S.W.2d 65 (Mar. 20, 1968). This opinion was released after the foregoing annotation was prepared.

Here in Connecticut it has been said that '(c)ontributory negligence exists where some act of the plaintiff was a proximate cause of the injury.' L'Heureux v. Hurley, 117 Conn. 347, 354, 168 A. 8, 10. Footnote 2 in Warner v. Liimatainen, 153 Conn. 163, 165, 215 A.2d 406, 408, reads in part: 'Contributory negligence * * * is available as a defense whenever any negligence on the part of a plaintiff is a proximate cause of his injuries.' '(T)he act or omission of a party injured which amounts to what is called contributory negligence, must be a negligent act or omission, and in the production of the injury it must operate as a proximate cause or one of the proximate causes, and not merely as a condition. * * * (I)f * * * the plaintiff by his act increased the injury merely, then if this were true it would not be such contributory negligence as would defeat the action. To have that effect it must be an act or omission which contributes to the happening of the act or event which caused the injury. An act or omission that merely increases or adds to the extent of the loss or injury will not have that effect, though of course it may affect the amount of damages recovered in a given case.' Smithwick v. Hall & Upson Co., 59 Conn. 261, 269, 271, 21 A. 924, 925, 12 L.R.A. 279.

The decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in Sams v. Sams, 247 S.C. 467, 148 S.E.2d 154, 15 A.L.R.3d 1423, is said to be the first reported case which dealt with the question whether the failure of an occupant of an automobile to use available seat belts may be found to be contributory negligence so as to bar his recovery for damages. See the opening paragraph to the annotation in 15 A.L.R.3d 1428. The opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina in Miller v. Miller, supra, was released later in time than those cases cited and discussed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 15, 1982
    ...Trucking Co., 400 F.Supp. 867 (W.D.Pa.1975); Benner v. Interstate Container Corp., 73 F.R.D. 502 (E.D.Pa.1977); Uresky v. Fedora, 27 Conn.Sup. 498, 245 A.2d 393 (1968); Spier v. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444, 363 N.Y.S.2d 916, 323 N.E.2d 164 (1974); Sams v. Sams, 247 S.C. 467, 148 S.E.2d 154 (1966)......
  • Eichorn v. Olson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 8, 1975
    ...seat belt instructions if limited to the issue of damages. Henderson v. United States, 429 F.2d 588 (10th Cir.); Uresky v. Fedora, 27 Conn.Super. 498, 245 A.2d 393; Spier v. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444, 363 N.Y.S.2d 916, 323 N.E.2d 164; Sonnier v. Ramsey, 424 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Civ.App.); Bentzler v......
  • Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 63312
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1984
    ...Trucking Co., 400 F.Supp. 867 (W.D.Pa.1975); Benner v. Interstate Container Corp., 73 F.R.D. 502 (E.D.Pa.1977); Uresky v. Fedora, 27 Conn.Sup. 498, 245 A.2d 393 (1968); Spier v. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444, 323 N.E.2d 164, 363 N.Y.S.2d 916 (1974); Sams v. Sams, 247 S.C. 467, 148 S.E.2d 154 (1966)......
  • Glover v. Daniels, EC 6920-S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • March 23, 1970
    ...at 85. 23 Id. 24 La.App., 213 So.2d 784, Application denied 252 La. 969, 215 So.2d 131 (1968). 25 213 So.2d at 786. 26 27 Conn.Sup. 498, 245 A.2d 393 (1968). 27 28 Conn.Sup. 289, 259 A.2d 145 28 259 A.2d at 146. 29 247 S.C. 467, 148 S.E.2d 154 (1966). 30 148 S.E.2d at p. 155. 31 34 Wis.2d 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT