Scanlon v. Connecticut Light Power Co., 258 Conn. 436, 445 n. 14, 782 A.2d 87 (2001). The plaintiffs request to charge regarding the applicable standard of care provided: "In this case, the defendant owed the plaintiff a special duty of care due to his being upon the roadway because his work required it. This is because a workman upon the roadway cannot devote his or her full attention to vehicles upon the roadway but instead must devote his or her attention to the work he or she is performing. Viretto v. Tricarico, 116 Conn. 718 [ 165 A. 345] (1933)." The plaintiff cites Pfaff v. H. T. Smith Express Co., 120 Conn. 553, 181 A. 621 (1935), and Viretto v. Tricarico, 116 Conn. 718, 165 A. 345 (1933), to support his claim that a special or heightened duty of care is owed to a workman when he is in the roadway in the performance of his duties.

The plaintiff's final claim is that the court improperly failed to honor his request for an instruction that the jury consider the special duty owed to workers in road construction work zones. The plaintiff cites Viretto v. Tricarico, 116 Conn. 718, 165 A. 345 (1933), in support of this claim. To the extent that the plaintiff argues on appeal that the defendant had a heightened duty of care due owing to the fact that the plaintiff was working in a road construction work zone when the injury occurred, the plaintiff's claim has not been preserved properly.

Riley v. Consolidated Ry. Co., 82 Conn. 105, 108, 72 A. 562. Due care is always predicated on the existing circumstances. Geoghegan v. Fox Co., Inc., 104 Conn. 129, 138, 132 A. 408; Viretto v. Tricarico, 116 Conn. 718, 719, 165 A. 345. The peculiarity of the circumstances surrounding an accident may furnish support for a defendant's verdict but the trier of the fact is, in this state, given a wide latitude in drawing the inference of negligence. Ruerat v. Stevens, 113 Conn. 333, 155 A. 219; Savage v. St. Aeden's Church, 122 Conn. 343, 189 A. 599; Fallo v. New York, N.H. H.R. Co., 123 Conn. 81, 84, 192 A. 712; White v. Herbst, 128 Conn. 659, 661, 25 A.2d 68. Under the evidence, a circle with a ten-foot radius would have included all of the actors. The driver could not see the bar from his position in the cab but he could have seen it when he got off the truck when he first arrived, and he was backing under the direction of his helper, another employee of the lumber company, who had moved various things out of the way of the truck and could have seen the danger.

We cannot say under the circumstances that the jury was not justified in finding that the defendant had failed to prove the contributory negligence of the plaintiff's intestate by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Case v. Clark, 83 Conn. 183, 194, 76 A. 518; Viretto v. Tricarico, 116 Conn. 718, 720, 165 A. 345; 47 A.L.R. 807, note.

The truck had no superior right of way, and it should have been driven and controlled with reasonable care and diligence with respect to the plaintiff's safe user of the employer's right of way. Hence it was not negligence for the plaintiff to fail to anticipate the negligent act or omission of the operators of the defendant's truck. Askin v. Moulton, 149 Md. 140, 144, 131 A. 82; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Construction Co., 153 Md. 19, 23, 24, 137 A. 503; Hilton Quarries, Inc., v. Hall, 161 Md. 518, 531, 158 A. 19; Distefano v. Universal Trucking Co., 116 Conn. 249, 164 A. 492; Viretto v. Tricarico, 116 Conn. 718, 165 A. 345; Hirrel v. Lacey, 274 Mass. 431, 174 N.E. 679, 680; Roberts v. Freihofer Baking Co., 283 Pa. 573, 129 A. 574; Riley v. Tsagarakis, 50 R.I. 62, 145 A. 12; Lozio v. Perrone, 111 N.J. Law 549, 168 A. 764; Nehring v. Stationery Co. (Mo. App.), 191 S.W. 1054. Nor was the fact that the plaintiff did not look back while he rolled the tank down the west driveway conclusive evidence of contributory negligence on his part. Mears v. McElfish, 139 Md. 81, 84, 114 A. 701; Hall v. Albertie, 140 Md. 673, 680, 681, 118 A. 189; Berry v. Irwin, 220 Ky. 708, 295 S.W. 1020; O'Donnell v. Lange, 162 Mich. 654, 127 N.W. 691.

Heimer v. Salisbury, 180 Conn. 180, 183, 143 A. 749; Jones v. Hedges, 123 Cal.App. 742, 752, 12 P.2d 111; 3 Berry, Automobiles (7th Ed.) § 3.433. The jury might also properly have considered that the very narrow space in which the plaintiff stood was due to the fact that the driver of the Verillo truck drove it as near to the Smith truck as he did; they might have accepted the plaintiff's testimony that he did not know that the outer rear wheel of the Smith truck, which caused his injury, extended beyond the body of the truck; and they might have found that it was reasonable for him to rely, as he stated he did, upon the fact that the Smith truck would not start until he had an opportunity to move further away from it. Viretto v. Tricarico, 116 Conn. 718, 720, 163 A. 345. Indeed, they could well have considered whether the plaintiff, with space to stand where he was in safety if the Smith truck did not move, would have been reasonably justified in attempting to cross in front of the Verillo truck which was approaching at a distance of only twenty to twenty-five feet. The issue of the plaintiff's contributory negligence should also have been submitted to the jury.

Under such findings, plaintiff was entitled to rely to a reasonable extent upon the knowledge of and obedience to, the law on the part of traffic coming east at such approximate distance from the intersection. Viretto vs. Tricarico, 116 Conn. 718, 719; Grannatasio vs. Nealon, 117 Conn. 696, 697. She was not required, under such conditions to maintain a constant vigil for traffic coming from the direction that defendant did, as she crossed the street, under pain of being found negligent as a matter of law.