Connecticut Appellate Court Issues Opinion on Car Accident Liability
A recent opinion by the Connecticut Supreme Court involved a case wherein a motorist suffered severe injuries when his car skidded out of control and struck a parked fire truck and bridge railing on I-95.

September 18, 2011 /24-7PressRelease/ -- In the aftermath of any motor vehicle accident, personal injury lawyers help clients understand their full range of legal options. One vital aspect of this service is assessing the evidence to identify all potentially liable parties and pursue full compensation for a client's losses.

In legal language, the concept of "proximate cause" applies to how far liability can be extended, and a recent opinion by the Connecticut Supreme Court has clarified this principle. The case involved a motorist who suffered severe injuries when his car skidded out of control and struck a parked fire truck and bridge railing on I-95.

The emergency vehicle was blocking two lanes to divert traffic due to a tractor trailer accident that had occurred more than two hours earlier. The truck driver had lost control of his rig, striking both the bridge railing and center barrier before regaining control and coming to a stop. The semi tractor leaked over thirty gallons of diesel fuel on the highway due to damage cause by the impact.

The injured motorist filed a negligence claim against the truck driver and his employer, alleging that his physical injuries had resulted from the trucker's negligent operation of the truck. The trial court dismissed the claim, ruling that the plaintiff's "collision with an emergency vehicle several hours after the defendant's accident was not reasonably foreseeable nor was it the proximate cause of the plaintiff's accident and injuries."

Persistence on Appeal: Exhausting a Personal Injury Victim's Options

The plaintiff appealed, and the Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the lower court's decision. The court characterized the case as a "rare circumstances in which the trial court properly may find a lack of proximate cause as a matter of law" because no facts were present that could "permit a trier of fact to draw an unbroken line of causation" between the earlier truck accident and the subsequent collision with the fire truck.

While the motorist's attempt to hold the truck driver and his employer responsible for the accident was unsuccessful, a separate appeal was resolved in his favor. The Appellate Court of Connecticut previously held that the trial court had improperly denied the motorist's separate claim against the town of Greenwich, which had been dismissed based on the concept of governmental immunity. By diligently exploring all theories of liability, an experienced car accident attorney can protect a client's interests.

Press Release Contact Information:

Findlaw PR