Working one's way through the morass of governmental immunity law is a daunting task. In Merritt v. Bethel Police Department, 120 Conn. App. 806, (2010), although the Appellate Court comes down on the side of the municipality because the plaintiff did not sufficiently...
Blog
Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder News
Attorney’s Apparent Authority to Sign Settlement Agreement
In Hogan v. Lagosz, 124 Conn App. 602 (2010) (October 26, 2010), the Appellate Court reiterated the rules of apparent authority in this action to enforce a settlement agreement signed by the defendant's attorney. The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court had...
High Court Clarifies Landmark ‘Mode of Operation’ Rule
In the landmark decision Kelly v. Stop & Shop, 281 Conn. 768 (2007), the Supreme Court adopted the "mode of operation" rule, an exception to the traditional premises liability doctrine, which dispenses with the requirement that a plaintiff prove that a business...
Substituted Plaintiff Should Refile Offer of Compromise
In DiLieto v. County Obstetrics and Gynecology Group, P.C., 297 Conn. 105 (2010), the Court examined offer of compromise interest. In DiLieto, after several appeals and two trials - the second one resulting in a plaintiff's verdict of over $5 million, the case...
Procedural Pitfall in Governmental Immunity Cases
In Governmental Immunity cases, the Appellate Court set forth a new rule of procedure: In the reply to a special defense of governmental immunity, the plaintiff must now plead as a matter in avoidance that he is entitled to an exception to discretionary act immunity...
Sewage Backup Into Home from City Main Is Not a Public Nuisance
General Statutes § 52-584, not § 52-577, is the applicable statute of limitations barring nuisance claims arising out of negligence. The plain language of § 52-584 makes it applicable to actions "to recover damages for injury to...real or personal...
Victim Not Sufficiently Identifiable to Avoid Governmental Immunity Defense
The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of governmental immunity applied to shield the defendants from liability for the alleged injuries of the plaintiff. The plaintiff acknowledged that the defendants' conduct was discretionary, so the former could prevail only if...
Time Doesn’t Stop Running for Intentional Emotional Distress Claim
The existence of an original duty must be determined before applying the continuing course of conduct doctrine to toll the statute of limitations in a non-negligence cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In Watts v. Chittenden, 115 Conn....
Intervening Employer Gets His Money Back No Matter What
In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court held that the trial court properly reduced the amount of the jury award of noneconomic damages by the amount of payments the plaintiff's employer was obligated to pay him, despite the fact that the employer was paying...
It Was Wrong to Preclude Plaintiff’s Premises Security Expert
Returning to the Supreme Court for the second time, that court held that the plaintiff's premises security expert should not have been precluded from testifying in this case involving railroad security. Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 292 Conn. 150 (2009)....