Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.9-34

There is a claim that a storm was ongoing or had recently ended at the time the plaintiff fell.

Under our law, [in the absence of unusual circumstances,] a defendant in control of the premises

is permitted to wait until the end of a storm and is given a reasonable time thereafter to remove

ice and snow from <describe location of the fall>. If you find there was an ongoing storm at the

time the plaintiff fell, [absent unusual circumstances,] you may not find the defendant breached

the duty to maintain the premises based on a failure to remedy the conditions created by the

storm. If you find a storm had recently ended, [unless you also find unusual circumstances

existed,] you may not find the defendant breached the duty to maintain the premises unless an

unreasonable amount of time passed after the storm and before the defendant remedied the

conditions created by the storm.

[<Insert if a preexisting condition is claimed:> You may also find that the plaintiff’s fall resulted

from preexisting <describe precipitation> in which case the ongoing storm does not excuse the

defendant from the duty to remedy the preexisting condition, even if the recent or ongoing storm

enhanced the preexisting danger.]

[<Insert if unusual circumstances are claimed:> Even if there was an ongoing storm, or one had

recently ended, you may consider whether there were unusual circumstances present that would

make the defendant responsible for removing snow and ice from <describe location of the fall>

sooner. There has been evidence presented in this case that <describe unusual circumstances

present in the case>. If you find from the evidence that such circumstances existed at the time of

the plaintiff’s fall, you may find that the defendant breached the duty to maintain the premises

under those circumstances.]

[<Insert if applicable:> Your consideration of these issues will require you to answer

interrogatories,

1 which I will explain to you later in these instructions.]

1 Jury interrogatories are strongly recommended in any case where “unusual circumstances” are

claimed. See Cooks v. O’Brien Properties, Inc., 48 Conn. App. 339, 347 n.5