Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 14 — · Chapter 248 — Vehicle Highway Use
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-245 (2025)

Intersection. Right-of-way

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this section and subsection (e) of section 14-242, “intersection” means the area common to two or more highways which cross each other. Each driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall grant the right-of-way at such intersection to any vehicle approaching from his right when such vehicles are arriving at such intersection at approximately the same time, unless otherwise directed by a traffic officer. Failure to grant the right-of-way as provided in this section shall be an infraction.

(1955, S. 1397d; 1971, P.A. 299, S. 1; P.A. 73-616, S. 11; P.A. 75-577, S. 89, 126.)

History: 1971 act defined “intersection”; P.A. 73-616 deleted reference to repealed Sec. 14-246 and referred instead to Subsec. (e) of Sec. 14-242; P.A. 75-577 stated that failure to grant right-of-way is an infraction.

See Sec. 14-111g re operator's retraining program.

See Sec. 14-250b re obstructing intersection.

See Sec. 14-295 re assessment of double or treble damages.

Annotations to former section:

“Intersection of a street” and “arriving at such intersection at approximately the same time” defined; that cars are approaching so as to arrive simultaneously is important element. 95 C. 701; 96 C. 19; Id., 508; 101 C. 443, 444; 104 C. 737. Respective duties of motorman and chauffeur approaching at right angles. 100 C. 365. One having right of way at intersection is bound to operate as would a reasonably prudent person having knowledge that he has right of way. 106 C. 146; 108 C. 12; 124 C. 264; 130 C. 204. Driver coming from right has right of way though traveling on left side of his road; 107 C. 710; but not if the other car had nearly passed the intersection when car from right reached it. 108 C. 604. Test is not time of arrival at entrance to intersection, but reasonable apprehension of collision on part of driver on left. 109 C. 33, 37; 127 C. 450, 651; 130 C. 645; 133 C. 431. One with right of way may assume other will yield it until as a reasonable man he is charged with knowledge to the contrary. 109 C. 33, 37; 127 C. 450, 651; 130 C. 651. Rule at intersecting streets applies when one of two cars approaching each other on same street intends to make left turn. 109 C. 484; 111 C. 729. Right of way and duty of driver approaching green light at intersection; Sec. 14-299 applies, not this section. 114 C. 637. When vehicle which has entered intersection has right of way over vehicle on right. 117 C. 676; 118 C. 679; 130 C. 98; 132 C. 476. One having right of way at intersection has precedence in passing through and right not to be obstructed and delayed by any person who could reasonably avoid doing so. 123 C. 298. That cars came together outside intersection will not defeat recovery if collision was caused by failure to grant right of way at intersection. 124 C. 263. That car making turn enters intersection first does not necessarily give it right of way. Id., 264. Operator of vehicle approaching intersection from right who complies with stop regulation has superior right of way if vehicles arrive at approximately same time. 130 C. 400; 133 C. 455. Rules which apply when operator does not see car approaching from right; 130 C. 646; where bus obscures vision of both operators. Id., 223. Statute regulating right of way does not apply when cars are approaching intersection on same street and from same direction. 135 C. 443. Test concerning right of way is not time of arrival at entrance to intersection but reasonable apprehension of collision on part of driver approaching from left. Id., 446. Cited. Id., 600. If by failure to use reasonable care plaintiff did not see approaching taxicab, knowledge of what such a lookout must have revealed is imputed to him. 136 C. 97. If an ordinarily prudent person in position of driver on the left would reasonably believe that if the two cars continued at speed at which they were then moving it would involve risk of collision, driver on left should yield right of way. 137 C. 600. Since finding determined that defendant's invasion of part of highway to his left was involuntary, statute is inapplicable. Id., 640. Arriving at intersection first is not a test of the right of way but a factor to be considered by the trier in deciding whether the cars are arriving at approximately the same time. 138 C. 183. Statute imposes no general prohibition against driving in the middle of road. Id., 313. Cited. Id., 355; 140 C. 376. Violation is negligence per se but charge held adequate which stated that statute required a certain course of action; one with statutory right of way can be found negligent. 146 C. 10. Test of statutory right of way or common law right to proceed is not time of arrival at entrance to intersection. 147 C. 540. Cited. 154 C. 23; Id., 615. Where plaintiff failed to grant right of way to defendant's automobile which had already entered street intersection at his right, his failure to do so constituted negligence which was a substantial factor in producing his injuries and judgment for plaintiff is set aside. 157 C. 139. Right-of-way rule is inapplicable to an intersection controlled by a stop sign. 165 C. 635.

Statute not applicable to pedestrians. 3 CS 220. Cited. 9 CS 98; 12 CS 237; 13 CS 293; 15 CS 93; 16 CS 398; 18 CS 489.

Cited. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 19. Contributory negligence as a defense has no application in a criminal case. Id., 42. Cited. Id., 652.

Annotations to present section:

Cited. 206 C. 608; 234 C. 660.

Cited. 4 CA 451.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1963–2018 · leading case: Bishop v. Kelly, 539 A.2d 108 (Conn. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bishop v. Kelly, 539 A.2d 108 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 3× “…of such action.” While the operation of § 14-295 is triggered only by a violation of §§ 14-230 to 14-242, inclusive, § 14-245 or § 14-247, such a violation does not automatically require the imposition of multiple damages; rather, the determination of whether double or treble…”
Donner v. Kearse, 662 A.2d 1269 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 3× “Finally, the court explained that Riccio might have violated General Statutes § 14-245 by failing to yield the right of way at an intersection.”
Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 472 A.2d 306 (Conn. 1984). “Each person who, by neglecting to conform to any provision of sections 14-230 to 14-242, inclusive, or section 14-245, or 14-247, causes any injury to the person or property of another, shall be liable to the party injured in double or treble damages if, in the discretion of the…”
Fiano v. Old Saybrook Fire Co. No. 1, 184 A.3d 1218 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 14-243 3 ... and ... he .”
State v. Hackett, 804 A.2d 225 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “…highway); General Statutes § 14-238 (controlled access highway); General Statutes § 14-238a (limited access highway); General Statutes § 14-242 (highway); General Statutes § 14-245 (highway); General Statutes § 14-246a (highway); General Statutes § 14-247 (private road or…”
State v. Alterio, 220 A.2d 451 (Conn. 1966). · cites it 2× “DeLoma assigns error in the court’s failure to charge in terms applicable to civil negligence concerning the right of way at an intersection and the standard of care required of a minor. These assignments assert that the court refused DeLoma’s request to charge on these subjects.”
Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 472 A.2d 316 (Conn. 1984). “Each person who, by neglecting to conform to any provision of sections 14-230 to 14-242, inclusive, or section 14-245, or 14-247, causes any injury to the person or property of another, shall be liable to the party injured in double or treble damages if, in the discretion of the…”
Velardi v. Selwitz, 345 A.2d 527 (Conn. 1974). · cites it 3× “In a later discussion of requests to charge submitted by the parties, however, the court instructed the jury that Selwitz was required to yield the right-of-way to vehicles approaching from his right and it then gave the jury the usual instructions concerning § 14-245.”
Pickering v. Theresa Rankin-carle, 926 A.2d 1065 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). “We note that “[t]he right-of-way rule of § 14-245 is inapplicable to an intersection controlled by a stop sign .”
Jack v. Scanlon, 495 A.2d 1084 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985). “The statute permits the assessment of double or treble damages against “[e]ach person who, by neglecting to conform to any provision of sections 14-230 to 14-242, inclusive, or section 14-245, or 14-247, causes any injury to the person or property of another .”
Leone v. Knighton, 493 A.2d 887 (Conn. 1985). “Bach person who, by neglecting to conform to any provision of sections 14-230 to 14-242, inclusive, or section 14-245, or 14-247, causes any injury to the person or property of another, shall be liable to the party injured in double or treble damages if, in the discretion of the…”
Hume v. Hertz Corp., 628 F. Supp. 763 (D. Conn. 1986). “, provides that: Each person who, by neglecting to conform to any provision of sections 14 — 230 to 14-242, inclusive, or section 14-245, or 14 — 247, causes any injury to the person or property of another, shall be liable to the party injured in double or treble damages if, in…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.