Connecticut Jury Awards $1,779 in Route 6 Rear‑End Collision Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
This case arose from a car accident that occurred on October 12, 2021, in Bethel, Connecticut. Donald P. Tutson Jr. brought the lawsuit against Ellen Benz in the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Bridgeport. The matter dealt with negligence claims stemming from a rear-end collision on a state highway, Route 6 Stony Hill Road.
At that time, Tutson had been stopped at a red light, operating his 2006 Saab. Benz, who had been driving behind him in a 2006 Nissan, struck his vehicle from the rear. The lawsuit alleged that Benz’s carelessness caused the collision and the resulting injuries.
The cause that led to the dispute
The events leading to the lawsuit began with the Defendant’s failure to stop her car in time. The complaint detailed that Ellen Benz had driven behind Tutson’s stopped vehicle in the eastbound lane of Route 6, Stony Hill Road. Instead of bringing her car to a halt, she had driven directly into the rear of his Saab.
Tutson claimed that Benz’s negligence caused the violent collision. He accused her of driving while distracted, specifically by using a handheld mobile device. Additionally, he alleged that she had been speeding and had failed to maintain a reasonable lookout. The complaint also charged that Benz had neither slowed down in time nor properly applied her brakes before striking his vehicle.
Injuries suffered
Tutson sustained multiple personal injuries from the crash. The lawsuit explained that the collision had injured his spine and surrounding soft tissues, ligaments, and muscles. These injuries resulted in physical pain, some of which he believed could be permanent.
As a direct result of the crash, Tutson had sought medical treatment prescribed by his physicians. He claimed that his normal daily life had been disrupted, and that he could no longer enjoy the activities and pleasures he used to engage in before the accident. The injuries had also limited his future ability to participate in those activities.
Damages Sought
Beyond personal injuries, Tutson suffered property damage to his Saab. He asserted that the impact from the collision had caused significant damage to his vehicle, diminishing its utility and value. Further, he reported that he had incurred expenses for repairs, medical treatments, and related losses.
As part of the complaint, Tutson sought monetary damages exceeding $15,000. He also requested costs, attorneys’ fees, and any additional relief that the court deemed fair.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
During the trial, Tutson presented his case by highlighting the nature of the collision and pointing directly at Benz’s negligence. His primary argument focused on Benz’s distracted driving and failure to apply her brakes. The complaint had specifically mentioned that she had been operating her vehicle while using a mobile electronic device in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 14-299.
Tutson argued that Benz should have used reasonable care while driving and that her failure to do so directly caused the crash. His testimony described how the injuries impacted his life, health, and finances.
In response, Benz neither admitted nor denied the allegations of distracted driving or negligence, instead choosing to leave Tutson to his proof. Essentially, her answer to the complaint indicated that she did not have sufficient knowledge to confirm or refute the specific claims of negligence.
The case proceeded to a jury trial, with evidence and arguments focusing on the nature of the accident, the injuries sustained, and whether Benz’s actions had been reasonable under the circumstances.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Donald P. Tutson Jr.
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Donald P. Tutson Jr. (pro se)
Defendant: Ellen Benz
· Counsel for Defendant: Veronica Reis
Key Arguments by the Counsels
During proceedings, Tutson relied on his first-hand account of the crash and medical documentation of his injuries. His argument rested on showing that Benz’s failure to stop in time constituted clear negligence under Connecticut law. He emphasized the everyday responsibilities of drivers to maintain control of their vehicles, particularly while approaching stopped traffic.
Benz’s defense offered no direct contradiction of Tutson’s claims during the proceedings. Instead, her approach relied on questioning whether Tutson could fully establish the extent of his injuries or connect them directly to the crash.
Claims Asserted
Tutson advanced several negligence claims during the trial. He asserted that Benz had failed to maintain proper control of her vehicle, failed to maintain a lookout for other drivers, and operated her vehicle while using a handheld device in violation of Connecticut law. He also claimed that she had driven at an unreasonable speed for the traffic conditions and that she failed to slow down or steer to avoid his stopped vehicle.
Based on these claims, Tutson sought damages for his physical injuries, medical expenses, loss of enjoyment of life, diminished vehicle value, repair expenses, and related financial losses stemming from the accident.
Defense Arguments
Benz admitted that she had been driving the car involved in the collision. However, she refrained from admitting to any wrongdoing or negligence. Her formal answer to the complaint simply stated that she lacked sufficient knowledge to respond to several of Tutson’s allegations, thereby leaving him to prove them at trial.
The defense strategy appeared to focus on placing the burden entirely on Tutson to prove both that Benz had been negligent and that her actions directly caused his injuries and losses.
Jury Verdict
The jury reached a unanimous verdict in favour of the Plaintiff, Donald Tutson Jr., on May 7, 2025. The jurors concluded that Benz’s negligence had directly caused damages to Tutson.
They awarded him $1,779.40 in total compensatory damages. This amount covered the economic loss from property damage to his vehicle. The jury did not award any damages for pain, suffering, or loss of function, indicating that they did not find sufficient evidence to support non-economic losses or permanent injuries. By the end of the proceedings, the court officially entered judgment in favour of Tutson for the amount determined by the jury.