Drivers of vehicles proceeding in opposite directions shall pass each other to the right, and upon highways having width for not more than one line of traffic in each direction each driver shall give to the other at least one-half of the main-traveled portion of the highway as nearly as possible. Violation of any provision of this section shall be an infraction.
(1955, S. 1383d; P.A. 75-577, S. 74, 126.)
History: P.A. 75-577 added statement that violation of provisions is an infraction.
See Sec. 14-111g re operator's retraining program.
See Sec. 14-295 re assessment of double or treble damages.
Annotations to former section:
Submission to jury in case involving parties proceeding in same direction held material error. 147 C. 638.
Annotations to present section:
Cited. 159 C. 491. Not applicable to car making left turn across path of other car and should not have been submitted to jury. 170 C. 252. Cited in jury charge. 172 C. 29. Cited. 173 C. 229; 193 C. 442; 206 C. 608.
Cited. 4 CA 451; 30 CA 810; 33 CA 44. Jury reasonably could have found that although defendant did not yield half of roadway, he did yield as much of roadway as was possible under the conditions presented; he therefore did not voluntarily cross into oncoming lane of travel and did not breach duty under statute, and thus was not negligent. 95 CA 300.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2021 · leading case:
O'Briskie v. Berry, 897 A.2d 605 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
O'Briskie v. Berry, 897 A.2d 605 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 8× “8 Second, he argues that the evidence clearly showed that the defendant was statutorily negligent in failing to abide by General Statutes § 14-231. 9 Finally, the plaintiff contends that the evidence clearly showed that the defendant was negligent under the common law.”
Going v. Pagani, 372 A.2d 516 (Conn. 1976).
· cites it 3× “The court originally charged the jury by reading § 14-231 in its entirety, adding, however, cautionary instruction that § 14-236 of the General Statutes might be more applicable.”
Lutkus v. Kelly, 365 A.2d 816 (Conn. 1976).
· cites it 2× “” The court in its charge instructed the jury on this allegation and charged that a violation of Ueneral Statutes § 14-231 would he negligence per se. Section 14-231 provides: “Drivers of vehicles proceeding in opposite directions shall pass each other to the right, and upon…”
Fain v. Benak, 258 A.3d 112 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 3× “way to the plaintiff’s vehicle in violation of’’ General Statutes § 14-231; (2) ‘‘[f]ailed to pass to the right of the plaintiff’s vehicle in violation of’’ § 14-231; (3) ‘‘[f]ailed to grant the right of way to the plaintiff’s motor vehicle’’; (4) ‘‘[f]ailed to grant one half of…”
Amato v. Sawicki, 271 A.2d 80 (Conn. 1970).
“proper lookout; in that he failed to keep his car under proper control; in that he operated his car at an unreasonable speed; in that he failed to apply his brakes in time to avoid a collision; in that he made a sudden application of his brakes when there was no necessity to do…”
Angelino v. Hersey, 165 A.2d 152 (Conn. 1960).
“Section 1383d of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement, now § 14-231 of the 1958 Revision, had in part taken its place.”
Burcaw v. Sykora, 377 A.2d 298 (Conn. 1977).
“She asserted two claims of error — ■ that the verdict should have been set aside as against the evidence and that the court erred in its charge concerning the application of § 14-231 of the General Statutes, which provides that vehicles proceeding in opposite directions should…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.