Snoots v. Demorest

Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant (Snoots) claims that without warning he went to sleep while operating a motor vehicle and that this should excuse Mm from the judgment entered against him at the suit of the plaintiff appellees, John R. Demo-rest (Demorest) and his wife. We shall sustain the action of the trial court. Snoots, Demorest and another on the night of August 18, 1967, had been to motorcycle races.

They all had “a couple of beers” which was later defined to be two beers. They stopped on the way home to play the slot machines at which time Demorest and Snoots each had another beer. Although there appears to have been evidence of sleeping on the part of the passengers in the car, the parties testified that Snoots showed no visible effect of his three beers and that he appeared alert. Around midnight they stopped at a restaurant for breakfast.

It serves no alcoholic beverages. Snoots there drank coffee in addition to eating. They took one passenger home. Demorest remained. on the back seat of the car after that passenger was discharged.

About seven or eight miles from the point where this passenger was discharged the accident took place. Demorest’s version of it was: “We were just driving along and I must have fell asleep, and the next thing I remember was hitting the curb and waking up, going through the windshield.” He claimed that his last recollection before the accident was that Snoots was wide awake, very alert and not having any problem with his driving. ⁵⁷⁴ The Snoots version of the accident was: “Well, I took the normal route that I would take from Foote’s house to mine. And we were going out Good Luck Road and I apparently fell asleep at the wheel, and I woke up in an instant before we hit the curb.” He testified that he felt fine at Foote’s house ten or fifteen minutes before the accident, and he had no preliminary signs or indications that he was in a sleepy condition. On cross-examination, however, the record is as follows: “Q. You said apparently you fell asleep.

You don’t know whether you did for sure? A. No, not for sure.” It is the contention of Snoots here that the trial court erred in failing to rule as a matter of law that Demo-rest failed to establish negligence on the part of Snoots, “in that the evidence of record established that appellees’ injuries were caused when, without any reason to foresee or anticipate that he might do so, appellant suddenly fell asleep while operating the involved automobile.” Snoots relies on a recent decision of the Superior Court of Connecticut in Shanley v. Shanley, 27 Conn. Sup. 417 , 241 A. 2d 543 (1968) denying a plaintiff passenger’s motion for summary judgment in view of the fact