Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 5.3-3

Note: The degree of negligence under § 14-222a is ordinary civil negligence. State v. Kluttz,

9 Conn. App. 686, 698-99 (1987). The state may allege either statutory negligence or

common-law negligence. Tailor the instruction accordingly. If both theories of negligence

are submitted to the jury, the court should instruct the jury that they must be unanimous

on the type of negligence found.

The defendant is charged [in count__] with negligent homicide with a motor vehicle. The statute

defining this offense imposes punishment on any person who, in consequence of the negligent

operation of a motor vehicle, causes the death of another person.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Death of a person

The first element is that a person has died, here <insert name of decedent>.

Element 2 - Negligent operation of a motor vehicle

The second element is that the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a negligent manner. A

person “operates” a motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute when, while in the vehicle,

(he/she) intentionally does any act or makes use of any mechanical or electrical agency that

alone or in sequence sets in motion the motive power of the vehicle. A person acts

“intentionally” with respect to conduct when (his/her) conscious objective is to engage in such

conduct. <See Intent: General, Instruction 2.3-1.>

The defendant must have operated the motor vehicle in a negligent manner. Negligence is the

violation of a legal duty that one person owes to another to exercise reasonable care for the

safety of that person. There are, for purposes of this case, two kinds of negligence: statutory

negligence and common-law negligence. Statutory negligence is the failure to conform one’s

conduct to a duty imposed by the legislature through the enactment of a statute. Common-law

negligence is a violation of the duty to use reasonable care under the circumstances. A violation

of either of these duties is negligence.

As I just stated, common-law negligence is the failure to use reasonable care under the

circumstances. Reasonable care is the care that a reasonably prudent person would use in the

same circumstances. Thus, negligence is doing something that a reasonably prudent person

would not do under the circumstances, or failing to do what a reasonably prudent person would

do under the circumstances. The use of proper care in a given situation is the care that an

ordinarily prudent person would use in view of the surrounding circumstances. In determining

the care that a reasonably prudent person would use in the same circumstances, you should

consider all of the circumstances which were known or should have been known to the defendant

at the time of the conduct in question. Whether care is reasonable depends upon the dangers that

a reasonable person would perceive in those circumstances. It is common sense that the more

dangerous the circumstances, the greater the care that ought to be exercised.

Before determining whether the defendant used reasonable care, you must determine whether the

defendant owed another person a duty of care. The test of the existence of a duty to use

reasonable care is to be found in the foreseeability that harm of the general nature as that which

occurred may result if that care is not exercised. Therefore, the state must prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that the defendant, in view of the circumstances as (he/she) knew them or in the

reasonable exercise of (his/her) faculties should have known them, should have reasonably

anticipated that unless (he/she) used reasonable care, harm of the same general nature as that

inflicted upon the deceased would or could occur.

In determining what is reasonable care under all the circumstances, the conduct of the defendant

should be judged from the viewpoint of the reasonably prudent person. A driver of an

automobile is entitled to assume that other drivers will obey the law. The driver may thus

assume that other drivers will obey all statutes governing the operation of motor vehicles in this

state and that they will use the care that a reasonably prudent person would use in the same

circumstances. The driver is allowed to make this assumption until (he/she) knows, or in the

exercise of reasonable care should have known, that such an assumption is no longer warranted.

Statutory negligence is the failure to conform one’s conduct to a duty imposed by the legislature

through the enactment of a statute. By enacting such a law, the legislature has determined the

appropriate standard of care to which an individual’s conduct must conform. Conduct that

violates the requirements of such statute constitutes evidence of negligence.

The state alleges that the defendant has violated the motor vehicle statute <identify statute and

explain what it proscribes and how the defendant allegedly violated it>.

Therefore, if the state proves to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated this

motor vehicle statute, that would be evidence of negligence, because it would be a breach of the

duty of care in the operation of a motor vehicle as defined by the statute.

You may find that the defendant’s conduct was negligent if you find beyond a reasonable doubt

that the state has proved either common-law negligence or statutory negligence.

Element 3 - Proximate cause of death

The third element is that the defendant’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle was the

proximate cause of <insert name of decedent>’s death. You must find beyond a reasonable

doubt that <insert name of decedent> died as a result of the defendant’s negligent operation of

the motor vehicle. <See Proximate Cause, Instruction 2.6-1.>

Keep in mind that contributory negligence on <insert name of decedent>’s part is irrelevant to

your determination of the defendant’s guilt or non-guilt of this charge. <Insert name of

decedent>’s reasonable or unreasonable operation of (his/her) motor vehicle does not relieve the

defendant from (his/her) duty to operate (his/her) motor vehicle in a careful and cautious manner

unless such negligence on the part of the decedent was the sole proximate cause of (his/her)

death.1

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt 1) the death of <insert name of

decedent>, 2) that the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a negligent manner, and 3) that the

defendant’s negligent operation of the motor vehicle caused the death.

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements

of the crime of negligent homicide with a motor vehicle, then you shall find the defendant guilty.

On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.

1 Contributory negligence is not a defense in a prosecution for negligent homicide with a motor

vehicle unless such negligence on the part of the decedent is found to be the sole proximate

cause of the death. State v. Si, 184 Conn. App. 402, 412 (2018); State v. Scribner, 72 Conn. App.

736, 741 (2002). An instruction on contributory negligence and efficient intervening should be

included if warranted by the facts of the case. See State v. Scribner, supra, 741; State v.

Arrington, 81 Conn. App. 518, 522-25, cert. granted on other grounds, 268 Conn. 922 (2004)

(appeal withdrawn, judgment vacated April 21, 2005).