Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions - October 2009

Below are the tort law Appellate Court opinions issued in October 2009:

AC28949, AC29922, AC30013 - Greci v. Parks (Automobile Accident; Negligence “On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court (1) improperly determined that the final judgment in this case was rendered on August 17, 2007, rather than June 8, 2007, and (2) abused its discretion in denying their motions to set aside the verdicts and for a new trial or, in the alternative, for additur, because (a) the court improperly had permitted the defendant to cross-examine Michael Greci with respect to certain medical records that were unrelated to his claimed injuries, (b) the court permitted the defendant’s counsel to make improper arguments to the jury and failed to deliver a requested curative instruction related to the improper closing arguments, and (c) the verdicts were inconsistent.”)

AC29962 - Buchanan v. Moreno (Automobile Accident; Negligence “In this negligence action, the defendants, Maria Moreno and Enaroy Simms, appeal following the trial court’s denial of their motion to set aside the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Marcia E. Buchanan. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court abused its discretion in failing to admit a particular photograph as a full exhibit. On the basis of this claimed evidential impropriety, the defendants also contend that the court improperly denied their motion to set aside the verdict.”)

AC30097 - Gardner Heights Health Care Center, Inc. v. Korolyshun (“The underlying action here, however, was not such a contract action but was a claim of breach of fiduciary duty, which is a tort claim. See Ahern v. Kappalumakkel, 97 Conn. App. 189, 192 n.3, 903 A.2d 266 (2006). Accordingly, because § 42-150bb is not applicable to the action at hand, the court properly denied the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees.”)

AC29332 - Keller v. Beckenstein (“On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly granted (1) the motions for summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the first count as to whether the defendants were liable for a breach of contractual representations and warranties by commencing litigation against the plaintiffs, and (2) the motion to strike because the complaint sufficiently alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a violation under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.”)

Law Libraries' NewsLog