Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.9-20

The defendant has raised a special defense and claims that the plaintiff did not make a proper use

of (his/her) senses or faculties to avoid the injury, did not keep a proper lookout, and was not

watchful. Under our law, the plaintiff is presumed to be in the exercise of due care; and if the

defendant makes a claim to the contrary, the burden is on the defendant to prove it.

The defense is that the plaintiff failed to use due care to look out for (his/her) own safety. That

means that the plaintiff was not acting as a reasonably prudent or careful person would have

acted in view of the circumstances that you find existed at the time. If you find that the

defendant has proved that the plaintiff was not using reasonable care to discover defects or

dangerous conditions or to avoid such defects as (he/she) ought to have known about or ought to

have been able to discover, then the defendant has proved the defense of contributory negligence

and you must consider this negligence of the plaintiff in relation to that of the defendant.