Way v. Pavent

• Citation: 179 Conn. 377,426 A.2d 780
• Parties: Walter R. WAY v. Edward P. PAVENT.
• Decision Date: 25 December 1979
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

Page 780

426 A.2d 780

179 Conn. 377

Walter R. WAY v. Edward P. PAVENT.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 9, 1979.

Decision Released Dec. 25, 1979.

Albert J. Callahan, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

Konstant W. Morell, Norwich, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, PETERS and HEALEY, JJ.

LOISELLE, Associate Justice.

This action involves a collision between two motor vehicles operated respectively by the plaintiff and the defendant. The jury awarded the plaintiff $43,500 in damages, less 40 percent due to a finding of comparative negligence, or $26,100.

The statements of fact in the briefs show that the following evidence was before the jury. The two-car accident occurred on Saturday, April 20, 1974, at 9:59 p. m. The weather was clear, the road was dry and the lighting was excellent. The defendant was headed easterly on route 1A in the town of Waterford at about 55 miles per hour. The plaintiff was driving westerly on this highway at about 30 miles per hour. The plaintiff signaled his intention to make a left turn into a driveway on the southerly side of the highway. He stopped his vehicle and, after looking both ways, he saw nothing. As he proceeded to turn into the driveway, his vehicle was struck by that of the defendant. Both drivers were seriously injured and were taken to a hospital.

On the evening of the collision, the plaintiff had been with two companions in a New London bar from approximately 6 p. m. to 9:45 p. m. The plaintiff admitted that he drank six or seven eight-ounce glasses of beer. One of his companions testified that they each had ten ten-ounce glasses of beer during that time. The other companion stated that they each had about six glasses of beer. The defendant offered no evidence to show that the plaintiff's consumption of alcohol had affected his driving.

In his special defense, the defendant pleaded as an allegation of negligence that the plaintiff "was operating his motor vehicle under the influence of liquor contrary to the motor vehicle statutes." The court instructed the jury to disregard the issue of operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor because there was insufficient evidence upon which the jury could conclude that the statute had been violated. The defendant has appealed claiming error in the ruling and in the charge.

General Statutes § 14-227a(a) provides in part: "No person shall operate a motor vehicle ... while under the influence of intoxicating liquor ...." This statute "has been construed to require 'that a driver (has) become so affected in his mental, physical or nervous processes that he (lacks) to an appreciable degree the ability to function properly in relation to the operation of his vehicle.' ... The problem of just how much evidence of an alleged violation of § 14-227a(a) must be adduced to require determination of the truth of the allegation by a jury in a civil action has not been decided in any of our cases. If, however, reasonable minds might differ as to the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence submitted the issue is one to be determined by the trier as a question of fact.... Litigants have a constitutional right to have issues of facts decided by the jury ... and if there is evidence which will support a finding...