Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-114 (2026)

Pleading of contributory negligence

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any action to recover damages for negligently causing the death of a person, or for negligently causing personal injury or property damage, it shall be presumed that such person whose death was caused or who was injured or who suffered property damage was, at the time of the commission of the alleged negligent act or acts, in the exercise of reasonable care. If contributory negligence is relied upon as a defense, it shall be affirmatively pleaded by the defendant or defendants, and the burden of proving such contributory negligence shall rest upon the defendant or defendants.

(1949 Rev., S. 7836.)

Prior to statute, burden was on plaintiff to establish due care. 118 C. 531. Statute does not apply in action to recover damages under Secs. 13a-111 and 13a-149 for injury caused by breach of statutory duty. 119 C. 479; 133 C. 246; 147 C. 149. Even if statute not applicable, defendant alleging contributory negligence must bear burden of proof. 115 C. 664. Presumption under statute contrasted with other presumptions. 118 C. 58, 64; 130 C. 188. By pleading decedent's lack of contributory negligence, plaintiff waived right to benefit of presumption that decedent exercised due care. 119 C. 339; 123 C. 463. Trial court need not refer to statute or charge in terms that there is presumption of due care by deceased if it makes clear the effect of statute. 123 C. 28. Statute procedural, does not change substantive law that plaintiff cannot recover if his own negligence materially contributed to produce his injuries. 118 C. 537. Presumption does not affect plaintiff's burden of establishing defendant's negligence and that his conduct was proximate cause of injury. 129 C. 385. Where plaintiff alleged due care by intestate and defendant did not affirmatively plead contributory negligence, burden of proof is on plaintiff. 118 C. 471; 129 C. 29. But under such pleading, it is erroneous to charge that contributory negligence need not be considered. 126 C. 398. Plaintiff cannot complain of charge that defendant has burden of proving contributory negligence, without charging re quantum of proof required. 118 C. 212. Charge that burden of proving contributory negligence is on defendant by statute is sufficient when court also charges that party having burden of proof on any issue must meet it by fair preponderance of evidence. 119 C. 278. Where person charged with negligence also died as result of accident, plaintiff has burden of proving his decedent's freedom from contributory negligence. 117 C. 273. Statute not so limited in scope as to apply only to period immediately incident to accident. 118 C. 135. Application of statute to cellar explosion; 118 C. 128; malpractice; Id., 471; burning rubbish; 129 C. 26; drowning; 130 C. 309; collision between vehicles; 117 C. 271; 123 C. 49; 126 C. 396; 129 C. 11; Id., 378; 132 C. 461; pedestrian; 116 C. 150; Id., 716; 118 C. 210; 119 C. 699; 123 C. 25; 128 C. 53; Id., 605; 132 C. 420; 133 C. 329; motorcycle officer; 117 C. 484; policeman; 128 C. 332; highway worker; 126 C. 27; minor; 119 C. 277; 125 C. 526; 127 C. 297; 128 C. 182. Not inaccurate to charge that doctrine of last clear chance need not be considered unless jury found defendant had maintained burden of proving contributory negligence. 130 C. 316. Mere production of evidence tending to prove contributory negligence does not cause burden of proof to revert to plaintiff. 132 C. 465, overruling 131 C. 540. How to charge jury on statute. 133 C. 590. Cited. 134 C. 692. If defendant offers no evidence or fails to prove by a fair preponderance of evidence that plaintiff was negligent, plaintiff is entitled to prevail. 136 C. 171. Court may disregard evidence offered by defendant or hold it insufficient to sustain burden. Id., 550. Cited. 137 C. 551; 138 C. 313; Id., 381; Id., 508. Defendant must plead and prove contributory negligence. Id., 557. No contributory negligence as matter of law under circumstances. Id., 712. Cited. 139 C. 228; Id., 350; Id., 527; 140 C. 274; Id., 319; 141 C. 250; 142 C. 521. Burden of proof as to contributory negligence rests throughout on defendant. 145 C. 146. Application of statute in automobile collision case. 147 C. 540. Cited. 148 C. 447. Trier's conclusion on contributory negligence should stand unless the conduct involved is contrary to that of a reasonably prudent man. 154 C. 490. Where action by administrator of decedent's estate for negligently causing death in collision was tried together with action by defendant against administrator for personal injuries, both parties were entitled to benefit of statutory presumption, original charge to jury re effect of presumption was adequate and court's failure to repeat effect in response to plaintiff's oral request to charge was not error. 156 C. 40. Cited. 159 C. 507; 174 C. 200; 179 C. 406; 188 C. 607; 217 C. 12; 225 C. 637. Appropriate method for conveying effect of section to a jury is to articulate the burdens that it imposes upon the parties; those burdens are that plaintiff must prove defendant's negligence, and defendant must prove plaintiff's contributory negligence if defendant has pleaded it. 281 C. 29. Defense of contributory negligence applies to claims of negligent service of alcohol to minor. 312 C. 184.

Cited. 11 CA 1; Id., 348; 15 CA 668; 17 CA 268; 29 CA 552; Id., 791; 33 CA 714; 43 CA 294. Presumption of plaintiff's reasonable care is proper for jury to consider only when defendant affirmatively pleads contributory negligence. 86 CA 310. A defense that plaintiff's conduct was the sole cause of plaintiff's injury is not a special defense of contributory negligence that must be affirmatively pleaded. 140 CA 444.

Cited. 4 CS 224; 8 CS 110; 12 CS 239. Where plaintiff alleged that she exercised due care, she assumed the burden of proof on that issue and section did not apply. 14 CS 232. History reviewed. 16 CS 144. When section not applicable. 18 CS 124. Presumption does not affect the obligation of plaintiff to sustain burden of establishing negligence of defendant and that the conduct complained of was the proximate cause of injury. Id., 247. Although New York rule requires plaintiff to prove freedom from contributory negligence, in suit instituted in Connecticut resulting from accident in New York, plaintiff was not required to so plead. 20 CS 382. Cited. 21 CS 282; 23 CS 132; Id., 134. In suit brought against municipal employee under Sec. 7-465, burden of alleging and proving contributory negligence remains with employee in accordance with this section. Id., 228. Burden of proof, in the sense of risk of nonpersuasion, is on defendant, although in some instances, as where the facts raise a presumption of negligence, plaintiff may have the burden of going forward with the evidence. Id., 435. When plaintiff fails to show negligence, question of contributory negligence becomes moot. 25 CS 164. After defendant had affirmatively pleaded contributory negligence of plaintiff and all evidence had been presented she could not move for directed verdict upon claim that Rhode Island law controlled and plaintiff had burden of proving freedom from contributory negligence. 27 CS 508. Section, establishing presumption of due care on part of injured person, is applicable to suit against town and its employee under Sec. 7-465, which imposes indemnification liability on municipality. 28 CS 506. Cited. 29 CS 75; Id., 518.

Cited. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 217. Jury could reasonably conclude negligence of defendant was proximate cause of injury to plaintiff when plaintiff lit the pilot in defendant's bake oven which defendant had wrongfully assured him was free of gas. Id., 563.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 48 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1959–2024 · leading case: Juchniewicz v. Bridgeport Hosp., 914 A.2d 511 (Conn. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Juchniewicz v. Bridgeport Hosp., 914 A.2d 511 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 91× “The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the named plaintiff was not entitled to a jury charge, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-114, that the named plaintiff's decedent was presumed to be in the exercise of…”

Borkowski v. Sacheti, 682 A.2d 1095 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 8× “Moreover, in discussing the plaintiffs exception to its not granting the request as filed, the trial court also pointed out that the request was “limited to the statute [General Statutes § 52-114]. . . . It’s limited to the presumption of due care.”

Juchniewicz v. Bridgeport Hosp., 860 A.2d 1275 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 11× “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-114 .” 4 The plaintiffs counsel orally requested: “I would also request the court to specifically charge the jury that there is no claim of contributory negligence in this case.”

Bradford v. Herzig, 638 A.2d 608 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 7× “*719 I The plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly found that the defendant’s failure to plead the plaintiff’s contributory negligence as a special defense pursuant to General Statutes § 52-114 did not bar the jury from considering his contributory negligence in…”

Preston v. Keith, 584 A.2d 439 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, requiring the defendant to prove that a plaintiff has failed to mitigate damages places no greater a burden on the judicial system than does General Statutes § 52-114, 11 which requires a defendant pleading contributory negligence to bear the burden of persuasion on…”

Goodmaster v. Houser, 625 A.2d 1366 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 5× “If contributory negligence is relied upon as a defense, it shall be affirmatively pleaded by the defendant or defend *650 ants, and the burden of proving such contributory negligence shall rest upon the defendant .”

Janow v. Town of Ansonia, 525 A.2d 966 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987). · cites it 6× “It follows that an injury caused by the culpable negligence of a traveler, whether to himself or to another, does not happen by means of or through a defect in the highway, even if such defect were a concurring cause.”

Manning v. Michael, 452 A.2d 1157 (Conn. 1982). · cites it 3× “General Statutes § 52-114. 7 The defendant makes the additional claim that the court impermissibly included as an element of compensatory damages the plaintiff’s pain and suffering resulting from the defendant’s efforts, in the years prior to the altercation between the parties,…”

Bergmann v. Newton Buying Corp., 551 A.2d 1277 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989). · cites it 8× “The plaintiff claims that the court erred by failing to give the plaintiff’s requested charge regarding the statutory presumption of due care provided by General Statutes § 52-114. 2 This claim is without merit.”

Grecki v. Town & City of New Britain, 384 A.2d 372 (Conn. 1978). · cites it 6× “By pleading due care, the plaintiff waived his right to claim the *202 benefit of General Statutes § 52-114. 2 Petrillo v. Maiuri, 138 Conn.”

Meek v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 806 A.2d 546 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-114; Borkowski v. Sacheti, 43 Conn.”

Greco v. United Tech. Corp., 890 A.2d 1269 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 2× “, General Statutes § 52-114 (“[i]n any action to recover damages for negligently causing the death of a person, or for negligently causing personal injury or property damage, it shall be presumed that such person .”

Show all 48 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.