When a pedestrian suffers a trip and fall due to a pothole, crack or other defect in a sidewalk, can the municipality be required to pay compensation for resulting injuries? In Connecticut, holding a municipality liable can be difficult due a rule requiring the victim to prove that the defect was the sole proximate cause of their injury. However, there are ways to overcome this defense.

Under Connecticut General Statutes §13a-149, a person injured by means of a defective road may recover damages from the town or city that is bound to keep it in repair. The injured pedestrian must show that the municipality knew or should have known about the defect, that they failed to make timely repairs and the defect was the direct cause of accident.

Normally, under Connecticut’s modified comparative negligence doctrine, a plaintiff who is not more than 50 percent responsible for an accident can recover damages commensurate with the defendant’s share of fault. However, a municipality can argue that the plaintiff’s own conduct — whether glancing at a phone, wearing unsuitable footwear or failing to watch where they were going — was a contributing cause of the accident. Under the sole proximate cause rule, the municipality can escape liability entirely.

A skilled pedestrian injury attorney can nevertheless mount rebuttal evidence aimed at overcoming the sole proximate cause defense. A thorough site inspection is the first step. High-resolution photographs, video surveys, or even 3D scans can document the size, depth and abruptness of a pavement elevation change or crack, making clear that an ordinary pedestrian could not have spotted the defect in time to avoid it. Precise measurements showing an excessive vertical displacement or a dangerously wide gap help undermine any argument that the injury resulted solely from inattentiveness.

Expert testimony further bolsters the case. Accident-reconstruction specialists can explain sightlines, stopping distances, and reaction times, illustrating how a reasonable person, even watching where they were going, would still have tripped over the defect. Likewise, a pavement-engineering expert can testify that the flaw violated applicable construction or maintenance standards, elevating it from a minor irregularity to a hazardous condition. Such testimony not only contradicts the notion that the fall was purely the pedestrian’s fault but also helps establish foreseeability.

Documentary evidence regarding municipal notice and the duration of the defect is also important. Freedom of Information requests for inspection logs, repair histories, and work orders can reveal that town officials knew or should have known about the hazard. Deposition testimony from public-works employees or other officials can expose gaps in inspection practices or confirm that routine patrols failed to identify the defect, reinforcing the argument that the town neglected a foreseeable danger.

At Gesmonde, Pietrosimone & Sgrignari, L.L.C. in Hamden and East Haven, we represent accident victims throughout Connecticut. Call 203-745-0942 or contact us online to arrange a free consultation.