Rear-End Crash Lawsuit Fails: Jury Clears CT Driver Monick
Table of Contents
Case Background
On the afternoon of March 31, 2017, a rear-end motor vehicle collision occurred on Howe Avenue in Shelton, Connecticut. Plaintiff Roger Daigle was operating a Chevrolet Silverado, which he had brought to a stop, preparing to make a left turn onto Park Street. Defendant Ashley Monick, driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee owned by CCAP Auto Lease Ltd., then drove her vehicle into the back of Mr. Daigle’s truck. In 2019, Mr. Daigle filed a personal injury lawsuit in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford, claiming the crash had caused him severe and lasting injuries. The legal action sought to hold both the driver, Ms. Monick, and the vehicle owner, CCAP Auto Lease Ltd., responsible for the incident.
Cause
The lawsuit’s core accusation identified Ashley Monick’s negligent operation of the Jeep Grand Cherokee as the direct cause of the collision. Mr. Daigle alleged Ms. Monick operated her vehicle carelessly and illegally, causing it to strike the rear of his stopped truck. The complaint specifically charged her with several failures, including driving too closely, failing to keep a proper lookout, and operating the vehicle without reasonable control.
Injury
Roger Daigle claimed that the force of the rear-end impact inflicted severe and painful bodily injuries upon him. He asserted that these injuries necessitated extensive medical treatment and caused prolonged pain and disability. Furthermore, Mr. Daigle argued that his injuries had prevented him from enjoying his previous lifestyle, forcing him to restrict activities and alter his life permanently.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff, Roger Daigle, sought money damages to cover all his losses related to the accident. His claims included compensation for the pain, suffering, and disability he sustained, as well as the medical expenses he had already incurred. The claim also covered future expenses for hospitals, doctors, and therapy he anticipated needing because of the crash.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The litigation, bearing the docket number AAN-CV19-6033189-S, required over six years of processing and preparation before reaching a final resolution. While the vehicle owner, CCAP Auto Lease Ltd., had filed an answer to the complaint, the ensuing jury trial focused entirely on the allegations of negligence against the driver, Ashley Monick.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Roger Daigle
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Patrick D. Skuret
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Tamer Ghaly | Arthur Geiger | Gary Zimmerman | Jonas V. Lieponis | Gary M. Crakes
Defendant(s): Ashley Monick | CCAP Auto Lease Ltd.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Michael T. Grant
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The trial centered on the severity of the collision and the medical connection between the crash and the injuries Mr. Daigle claimed.
Claims
The Plaintiff’s legal team claimed that Ashley Monick’s negligence was the sole and direct cause of the crash. They asserted that her failure to brake, maintain adequate distance, and observe the road had triggered the chain of events that resulted in Mr. Daigle’s physical harm. They argued that even a low-speed impact could cause substantial, life-altering injuries to a person caught unprepared.
Defense
Attorneys for Ms. Monick and the lease company denied that Ms. Monick acted negligently. Furthermore, the defense raised several special defenses, arguing that the Plaintiff’s own negligence may have contributed to the collision or that the crash was unavoidable. Most crucially, they strongly asserted that the severity of Mr. Daigle’s claims did not match the minimal force of the impact, maintaining that the Plaintiff’s purported injuries were exaggerated, pre-existing, or not directly related to the 2017 incident.
Jury Verdict
After receiving the evidence and legal instructions, the jury began deliberations. On October 3, 2025, the jury returned its verdict to the Superior Court at Derby.
The jury found the issues in favor of the Defendant, Ashley Monick, and against the Plaintiff, Roger Daigle.
By finding for the Defendant, the jury concluded that Roger Daigle had not successfully proven his claim of negligence against Ashley Monick. This decision means the jury either found Ms. Monick was not negligent or that the Plaintiff failed to establish a legal connection between her actions and his claimed injuries. The Court formally accepted the verdict, concluding the six-year case without awarding damages to the Plaintiff.
Court Documents